Loading...
2024 01 23 PC4�6, W - — GEM afthe DESLRT — Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are now available on the City's web page: wwwJaquintaca.gov PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2024, AT 5:00 P.M. ****************************** Members of the public may listen to this meeting by tuning -in live via http://Iaguinta.12milesout.com/video/live. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call: Commissioners Caldwell, Guerrero, Hassett, Hernandez, McCune, Tyerman, and Chairperson Nieto. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on any matter not listed on the agenda pursuant to the "Public Comments — Instructions" listed at the end of the agenda. The Commission values your comments; however, in accordance with State law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an emergency item authorized by the Brown Act [Government Code § 54954.2(b)]. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR PAGE 1. MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2023 BUSINESS SESSION — NONE STUDY SESSION — NONE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page 1 of 5 JANUARY 23, 2024 PUBLIC HEARINGS — 5:00 p.m. or thereafter For all Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to consideration of that item; comments are limited to three (3) minutes (approximately 350 words). Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing and/or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project(s) at the time of the public hearing. If you challenge a project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. PAGE 1. CONSIDER RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 (EA2019-0010) AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000, ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-0003, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 FOR THE CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT CONSISTING OF 750 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A GOLF COURSE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE; CEQA: THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT ALTERNATIVE 2 OF PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EA2019-0010, APPLIES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT; LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET, AND NORTH OF AVENUE 60 COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission will be held on February 13, 2024, commencing at 5:00 p.m. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber, 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Tania Flores, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the Commission meeting of January 23, 2024, was posted on the City's website, near the entrance to the Council Chamber at 78495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at 51321 Avenida Bermudas, on January 18, 2024. DATED January 18, 2024 4+7 Tania Flores, Commission Secretary City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page 2 of 5 JANUARY 23, 2024 Public Notices • Agenda packet materials are available for public inspection: 1) at the Clerk's Office at La Quinta City Hall, located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253; and 2) on the City's website at https://www.laguintaca.gov/business/boards-and- commissions/planning-commission, in accordance with the Brown Act [Government Code § 54957.5; AB 2647 (Stats. 2022, Ch. 971)]. • The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please contact Commission Secretary at (760) 777-7023, 24 -hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. • If background material is to be presented to the Commission during a Commission meeting, please be advised that 15 copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Commission Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this takes place prior to the beginning of the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT — INSTRUCTIONS Members of the public may address the Commission on any matter listed or not listed on the agenda as follows: WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS can be provided either in-person during the meeting by submitting 10 copies to the Commission Secretary, it is requested that this takes place prior to the beginning of the meeting; or can be emailed in advance to TFlores LaQuintaCA.gov, no later than 12:00 p.m., on the day of the meeting. Written public comments will be distributed to the Commission, made public, and will be incorporated into the public record of the meeting, but will not be read during the meeting unless, upon the request of the Chair, a brief summary of public comments is asked to be reported. If written public comments are emailed, the email subject line must clearly state "Written Comments" and should include: 1) full name, 2) city of residence, and 3) subject matter. VERBAL PUBLIC COMMENTS can be provided in-person during the meeting by completing a "Request to Speak" form and submitting it to the Commission Secretary; it is requested that this takes place prior to the beginning of the meeting. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes (or approximately 350 words). Members of the public shall be called upon to speak by the Commission Secretary. In accordance with City Council Resolution No. 2022-028, a one-time additional speaker time donation of three (3) minutes per individual is permitted; please note that the member of the public donating time must: 1) submit this in writing to the Commission Secretary by completing a "Request to Speak" form noting the name of the person to whom time is being donated to, and 2) be present at the time the speaker provides verbal comments. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page 3 of 5 JANUARY 23, 2024 Verbal public comments are defined as comments provided in the speakers' own voice and may not include video or sound recordings of the speaker or of other individuals or entities, unless permitted by the Chair. Public speakers may elect to use printed presentation materials to aid their comments; 15 copies of such printed materials shall be provided to the Commission Secretary to be disseminated to the Commission, made public, and incorporated into the public record of the meeting; it is requested that the printed materials are provided prior to the beginning of the meeting. There shall be no use of Chamber resources and technology to display visual or audible presentations during public comments, unless permitted by the Chair. All writings or documents, including but not limited to emails and attachments to emails, submitted to the City regarding any item(s) listed or not listed on this agenda are public records. All information in such writings and documents is subject to disclosure as being in the public domain and subject to search and review by electronic means, including but not limited to the City's Internet Web site and any other Internet Web -based platform or other Web -based form of communication. All information in such writings and documents similarly is subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act [Government Code § 7920.000 et seq.]. TELECONFERENCE ACCESSIBILITY Teleconference accessibility may be triggered in accordance with AB 2449 (Stats. 2022, Ch. 285), codified in the Brown Act [Government Code § 549531, if a member of the Commission requests to attend and participate in this meeting remotely due to `just cause" or "emergency circumstances, " as defined, and only if the request is approved. In such instances, remote public accessibility and participation will be facilitated via Zoom Webinar as detailed at the end of this Agenda. *** TELECONFERENCE PROCEDURES — PURSUANT TO AB 2449*** APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN TELECONFERENCE ACCESSIBILITY IS IN EFFECT Verbal public comments via Teleconference — members of the public may attend and participate in this meeting by teleconference via Zoom and use the "raise your hand" feature when public comments are prompted by the Chair; the City will facilitate the ability for a member of the public to be audible to the Commission and general public and allow him/her/they to speak on the item(s) requested. Please note — members of the public must unmute themselves when prompted upon being recognized by the Chair, in order to become audible to the Commission and the public. Only one person at a time may speak by teleconference and only after being recognized by the Chair. ZOOM LINK: https://us06web.zoom.us/m/82853067939 Meeting ID: 828 5306 7939 Or join by phone: (253) 215 —8782 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page 4 of 5 JANUARY 23, 2024 Written public comments — can be provided in person during the meeting or emailed to TFlores .LaQuintaCA.gov any time prior to the adjournment of the meeting, and will be distributed to the Commission, made public, incorporated into the public record of the meeting, and will not be read during the meeting unless, upon the request of the Chair, a brief summary of any public comment is asked to be read, to the extent the Committee can accommodate such request. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page 5 of 5 JANUARY 23, 2024 CALL TO ORDER CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2023 A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission (Commission) was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Chairperson Nieto. PRESENT: Commissioners Caldwell, Guerrero, Hassett (joined the meeting at 5:44 p.m.), McCune, Tyerman, and Chairperson Nieto ABSENT: Commissioner Hernandez STAFF PRESENT: Design and Development Director Danny Castro, Planning Manager Cheri Flores, Associate Planner Siji Hernandez, and Commission Secretary Tania Flores PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Guerrero led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA — None. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA MOTION — A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Guerrero/Caldwell to confirm the Agenda as published. Motion passed: ayes — 5, noes — 0, absent — 2 (Hassett and Hernandez), abstain — 0. ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS, AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2023 2. CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION FINDING THE PROPOSED DONATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM BAY SHORE INCORPORATED PENSION TRUST TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA FOR OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION, CONSISTENT WITH THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15325 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; LOCATION: APN 604-050- 018, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 111, WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 5 DECEMBER 12, 2023 MOTION — A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Caldwell/Guerrero to approve the Consent Calendar as published with Item No. 2 adopting Planning Commission Resolution 2023-021. Motion passed: ayes — 5, noes — 0, absent — 2 (Hassett and Hernandez), abstain — 0. BUSINESS SESSION — None. STUDY SESSION — None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2022-0003, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2022-0007 FOR A NEW 125 ROOM HAMPTON INN HOTEL AND ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA2017-0009) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15164 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT ARE PROPOSED THAT RESULT IN NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS; LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA QUINTA DRIVE AND AUTO CENTRE DRIVE DECLARATIONS REGARDING COMMISSION PUBLIC CONTACT — None Associate Planner Fernandez presented the staff report which is on file in the Design and Development Department. Staff answered questions regarding the proposed changes to the parking standards and off-site parking availability; and design guidelines and standards of previously approved specific plan amendment. CHAIRPERSON NIETO DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 5:17 P.M. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Atman Kadakia, Applicant and Managing Principle for the Greens Group, introduced himself and provided additional information regarding the developer and their investment interest in the proposed project; the projected fiscal impact of the proposed project; the requested reduction from the required parking standards; meeting spaces within the hotel; anticipated timeline for the project's design review and build -out and neighboring residential project utilizing this site for their construction staging; pool area fence/wall for privacy; vehicle traffic routing and hotel and directional signage; in - room amenities, wet bar areas, guest breakfast area, and sundries store; tractor truck/trailer oversized parking spaces and indoor pool descriptions; in -room design with local artwork; sightline, noise, and privacy impacts to adjoining residential property; and security camera sightlines and privacy impacts. VICE CHAIRPERSON HASSETT JOINED THE MEETING AT 5:44 P.M PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 5 DECEMBER 12, 2023 F CHAIRPERSON NIETO DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 5:53 P.M. Commission discussion followed to include project building and parking orientation; reduction of the proposed parking lot light poles' height and possible spillage; removing the Hampton Inn south side signage; amending some of the proposed architectural design components; and street signage for the hotel entrance. CHAIRPERSON NIETO DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING RE -OPEN AT 6:07 P.M. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Mr. Kadakia questioned the Commission and staff on proposed changes and how any agreed upon changes could be implemented procedurally; agreed to changes to the building signage locations, parking lot light poles' height and landscape lighting, and deepening or extending parapet walls on the building. CHAIRPERSON NIETO DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 6:27 P.M. MOTION — A motion was made and seconded by Chairperson Nieto/Commissioner Hassett to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-022 to recommend City Council adopt an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2022-0001, as recommended: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA2017-0009) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15164 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT ARE PROPOSED THAT RESULT IN NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CASE NUMBER: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2022-0011 APPLICANT: VERDANT LAQUINTA LLC Motion passed: ayes — 6, noes — 0, absent — 1 (Hernandez), abstain — 0. MOTION — A motion was made and seconded by Chairperson Nieto/Commissioner Guerrero to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-023 recommending City Council approve SPA2022-0003 and SDP2022-0007, as amended, with parking lot light poles' height reduction to no more than 12 feet, removal of Hampton Inn lighted signage on south side of the building, extension of parapet walls into the building by at least 8 feet, and removing reference to indoor pool and tractor trailer parking: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR HAMPTON INN HOTEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AUTO CENTRE DRIVE AND LA QUINTA DRIVE WITHIN THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CASE NUMBERS: SPECIFIC PLAN 2022-0003; SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2022-0007 APPLICANT: VERDANT LAQUINTA LLC Motion passed: ayes — 6, noes — 0, absent — 1 (Hernandez), abstain — 0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 5 DECEMBER 12, 2023 E: 2. CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2023-1001 TO MODIFY FLAGPOLE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF FLAGPOLES FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS MANAGED BY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061 (b)(3), COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION; LOCATION: CITY-WIDE DECLARATIONS REGARDING COMMISSION PUBLIC CONTACT — None Design and Development Director Castro presented the staff report which is on file in the Design and Development Department. Staff answered questions regarding the ability for Homeowner Associations (HOA) to override City zoning codes if the proposed code amendment is adopted; building permit process and footing design standards; and "grandfathered" flagpole permits. CHAIRPERSON NIETO DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 6:39 P.M. Commission Secretary Flores said that there was no written public comment received and no in-person requests to speak were received. CHAIRPERSON NIETO DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 6:39 P.M. The Commission expressed general disagreement with adopting regulations that would allow HOAs to reduce the City's established setbacks for flagpoles. MOTION — A motion was made and seconded by Commissioner Caldwell/Chairperson Nieto to adopt a Planning Commission Resolution to recommend City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2023-1001 and find that the amendment is exempt from CEQA review, as recommended: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY FLAGPOLE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF FLAGPOLES FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS MANAGED BY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061 (b)(3), COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION CASE NUMBER: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2023-1001 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA Motion failed: ayes — 0, noes — 6, absent — 1 (Hernandez), abstain — 0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 5 DECEMBER 12, 2023 M STAFF ITEMS Planning Manager Flores provided a general project update regarding the upcoming or recently approved projects such as Highway 111 Corridor Area Plan, La Quinta Village Apartments and amended Housing Element, La Villetta at Avenue 58 residential development, McQuaid Art/Glassblowing Studio and mixed-use residential development, Travertine, Club at Coral Mountain, Jefferson Square Apartments; currently under construction projects such as Jefferson Street Apartments and Home Depot Tool Rental Center, Desert Club Apartments; and residential projects such as Point Happy, Piazza Serena, SolTerra, Palo Verde, and Stone Creek. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Commissioner Tyerman expressed appreciation for a recent Coachella Valley Water District training in which many other Commissioners and staff from La Quinta and surrounding cities also attended and recommended a public meeting where similar information could be provided; Commissioner McCune questioned the property donation of the "Rock" at Point Happy, north of Highway 111, accepted by the City, and the ownership of surrounding land and if the CV Link would connect to this area. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Caldwell/Hassett to adjourn this meeting at 7:00 p.m. Motion passed: ayes — 6, noes — 0, absent — 1 (Hernandez), abstain — 0. Respectfully submitted, TANIA FLORES, Commission Secretary City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 of 5 DECEMBER 12, 2023 10 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 City of La Quinta PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: January 23, 2024 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: CONSIDER RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 (EA2019- 0010) AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000, ZONE CHANGE 2023- 1000, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-0003, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 FOR THE CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT CONSISTING OF 750 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A GOLF COURSE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE; CEQA: THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT ALTERNATIVE 2 OF PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EA2019-0010, APPLIES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT; LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET, AND NORTH OF AVENUE 60 RECOMMENDATION • Consider a resolution to recommend City Council certify the Coral Mountain Resort Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2021020310) for Alternative No. 2 (EA2019-0010). • Consider a resolution to recommend City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2023-1000, Zone Change 2023-1000, Specific Plan Amendment 2023- 0003, Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005, and Development Agreement 2023-1000. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • A project was considered in 2022 for this site, which included residential units, a hotel, a mechanical wave pool, resort residential and commercial development. The City Council denied the project at its meeting of September 21, 2022. • The applicant has modified the project to make minor modifications to the Andalusia Specific Plan relating primarily to the design guidelines, allowing a contemporary architecture, but preserving the approved 750 residential units, golf course and commercial corner (Attachment 1). • The project includes General Plan and Zoning Map amendments to reflect changes in the layout of the future golf course and residential units. • A Development Agreement is proposed to establish the responsibilities of the developer in building out the project. 11 • In order to make a recommendation for approval of the project, the Planning Commission must: 1) Make findings in support of certifying the Coral Mountain EIR for Alternative No. 2, and direct staff to prepare CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2) Make findings and apply the Conditions of Approval (COAs) in support of the SPA. 3) Make findings and apply COAs in support of the Tentative Tract Map for financing purposes only (Attachment 2). BACKrROUND/ANALYRIS The project area consists of the westerly 387 acres of the 929 -acre Andalusia Specific Plan land area (Attachment 3). No changes to that portion of the Specific Plan occurring east of Madison Street are proposed. The project consists of the following components: 1. A General Plan Map Amendment (GPA) to modify the layout of the Low Density Residential, Open Space/Recreation and General Commercial land use designations. 2. A Zoning Map Amendment (ZC) to match the GPA and assure consistency with the General Plan. 3. A Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to update and modify the Andalusia Specific Plan (SP2003-067, Amendment V) to change the design guidelines, and make minor modifications to the balance of the Specific Plan affecting the west half of the Plan area only. 4. A Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to subdivide the 387 acres on the west side of Madison Street into 7 lots for financing purposes only. Should these applications be approved, the applicant would be required to submit Site Development Permits (SDP) for the golf course, residential units, and commercial square footage; and Tract Maps for any further division of the lots for single family homes. The applicant has not yet submitted any subsequent permits. The Specific Plan document contains a graphic of the design concept for the future project on which the current applications are based: 12 Exhibit 1 Project Design Concept The following discussion addresses each of the applications individually. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change The GPA and ZC are proposed to modify the layout of the Low Density Residential, General Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space Recreation/Golf Course designations on the site to allow for a slightly different layout forthese uses. (Exhibits A and B to the project Resolution) As shown in Table 1, the changes in layout also result in minor changes to the acreage in each designation. Table 1 Land Use Summar Land Use Zoning Existing Proposed Change Acres Acres acres General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial 8.4 7.7 -0.7 CN Low Density Low Density Residential 204.2 191.8 -12.4 Residential RL Open Space Golf Course (GC) 171.9 187.5 +15.6 Recreation *Note that Existing acreage is calculated on net (384.5 acres) and Proposed is calculated on gross (387 acres). 13 Therefore, the GPA and ZC will result in a minor decrease in Low Density Residential Land and increase in Golf Course land. This change is negligible but is necessary to assure that projects brought forward in the future on the site will be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning for the design concept shown in Exhibit 1 above. Neither the GPA nor the ZC will change the character, vision, or intent of the General Plan for this property. The findings for approval can be made and are provided in Attachment 2. Specific Plan Amendment The currently approved Andalusia Specific Plan allows the development of 750 residential units, a golf course, and a retail commercial corner on the western 387 acres. The SPA will not change that allowance, except that it will limit the commercial square footage to 60,000 square feet, which is less than what is currently allowed (about 84,000 square feet). It should be noted that the Specific Plan currently allows for short-term vacation rentals (STVRs), and the applicant preserves that allowance in the SPA, and in the Development Agreement (see below). The SPA (Exhibit C of the project Resolution) is provided in "red -line" format for the Commission's review. The changes proposed include: 1. Updates text and maps to reflect current conditions. 2. Adds a map of the current development concept for the west side (page 1.7) and modifies the Planning Area maps for the west side (page 2.2 ff). 3. Modifies acreage and maps for Planning Area III (residential areas); Planning Area V (commercial corner); and Planning Area VI (golf course); the interior circulation plan and street sections on the west side in Chapter 2. 4. Adds a new Section 2.8 Design Guidelines for the West Tract which provides for contemporary architecture and a revised landscape palette for the west side. 5. Adds Section 2.8.5, Sheep Protection Plan to address protection of Bighorn Sheep at Coral Mountain, as provided in the project EIR. 6. Adds a golf course clubhouse with a building height of 35 feet (page 3.10) and golf course maintenance facilities (page 3.11) as permitted uses in Planning Area III (residential). 7. Limits commercial development in the west side commercial corner to 60,000 square feet (page 3.15). 8. Adds Section 4.2 to provide a General Plan Consistency analysis for the west side amendments (page 4.7 ff.) 9. Other minor editorial changes to correct or change language to reflect current conditions. The most significant change in the Specific Plan is the addition of a new Design Guidelines section for the west side. The style proposed is contemporary, which is a significant departure from the Spanish architectural style that is permitted and has been constructed on the east side, within the Andalusia country club. This change, however, will not impact the existing Andalusia, and will not be incompatible with it because the west side is physically separated by roadways from the existing Andalusia. The two sides will function 14 as independent projects, much like Andalusia and Trilogy do now, although they were once part of the same Specific Plan. The SPA also allows golf course clubhouse and maintenance facilities in the residential Planning Area, rather than Planning Area VI, which applies to the golf course lands. The standards in Planning Area III (residential) currently allow outdoor recreational facilities. The amendment will maintain this use, and adds the clubhouse, fitness center and similar recreational facilities, both indoor and outdoor. Although no SDP is currently proposed, the applicant has indicated, and the concept plan supports, centralized recreational amenities in addition to the golf course, including a recreational lake in the west -central portion of the site. The SPA does not change any of the land uses currently allowed, nor does it change density/intensity of those land uses, except that it reduces the commercial square footage maximum of the commercial corner. The changes proposed are not substantial, and the Specific Plan remains consistent with the vision and intent of the Andalusia Specific Plan. The findings for approval can be made and are provided in Attachment 2. entative Tract Map The Subdivision Map Act allows for multiple types of maps. The currently proposed map is one which allows subdivision only for the purposes of financing. The 387 acres will be subdivided into 7 large lots. These lots can be sold or used for the purpose of securing financing but cannot be built upon until subsequent permits are obtained. As shown in Exhibit D of the project Resolution, in this case the TTM subdivides the land into parcels that conform to the layout of the future golf, residential, and commercial areas. The conditions of approval (Exhibit F of the project Resolution) reflect the limited nature of the TTM, and do not include improvements or bonding. These requirements will be applied to subsequent maps and SDPs as they are brought forward. The TTM conforms to the GPA, ZC and SPA, and is consistent with the Municipal Code. The findings for approval can be made and are provided in Attachment 2. Development Agreement A Development Agreement (DA) is proposed for the project (Exhibit E of the project Resolution). It includes the following terms: 1. Vests the project approvals and requires that the applicant develop the project pursuant to those approvals to include up to 750 residential units, a golf course, and 60,000 square feet of commercial space. 2. Allows STVRs for the residential units within the project. 3. Requires compliance with project design features and mitigation measures in the EIR. 4. Imposes an annual $1,000.00 per unit mitigation fee for public safety costs. 5. Allows the reduction or elimination of the per unit mitigation fee based on the amount of transient occupancy tax received by the City in two previous years. 15 6. Establishes a 10 -year phased development schedule, with the backbone infrastructure and golf course being completed within 4± years, and the residential and commercial within 10 years. The DA provides the City with both a timeline for project development, and a fee structure to allow the City to recover public safety costs for this area of the City, where property tax revenues are limited. In addition, the DA provides for assurance to the applicant STVRs can occur within the project. Although this is already allowed in the Specific Plan, the addition to the DA is consistent with how the City now allows STVRs to be permitted. The findings for approval can be made and are provided in Attachment 2. AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file and available for review with the Design and Development Department. All applicable comments have been adequately addressed and/or incorporated in the recommended COAs. Public Hearing Notice This public hearing for this Project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on January 12, 2024, distributed to properties within 500 feet of the Site, and emailed or mailed to all interested parties requesting notification of the project. At the time of publication, Staff has received comments on the project (Attachment 4). Tribal Consultation In accordance with SB18 and AB52, Tribal Consultation was conducted with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI), who were the only tribe to request consultation. Mitigation measures in the EIR address ACBCI's concerns regarding the site. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Coral Mountain EIR was prepared and released for public review in June of 2021. When the City Council determined that it would deny the Project, no action was taken on the EIR. It is important to note that since that time, conditions have not changed, and the property and environment remain as they were in 2021. The EIR included, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, five alternatives to the proposed Project: 1. No Project/No Build — the parcel remains in its current condition. 2. No Project/Existing Entitlements — the existing Specific Plan is implemented, allowing 750 residential units, an 18 -hole golf course, and 8.4 acres of retail commercial at the northeast corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58. 3. Reduced Density—the projectwould result in 400 residential units, 100 hotel rooms, 78,000 square feet of commercial and the artificial surf basin. `[ 4. Golf/Resort Hotel — the project would result in 150 hotel rooms and associated resort commercial, an 18 -hole public golf course, and 600 residential units. 5. Lake Amenity/No Hotel —the project would result in 750 housing units, 8.4 acres of commercial uses, and a 75 -acre lake which would be used for recreation. All the Alternatives were analyzed, as required under CEQA, to provide the public and decision makers with sufficient information to determine if they could reduce the significant impacts of the Project, and still meet most of the Project's objectives. Because this was project -level analysis, the Alternatives quantified impacts, including air quality, water demand and traffic. Under Alternative No. 2, the EIR concluded that some impacts would be comparable to the Preferred Alternative, some would be reduced, and some would be significant and unavoidable, including aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and vehicle miles traveled. The applicant's current proposal is consistent with Alternative No. 2: it would allow 750 housing units, a golf course, and 60,000 square feet of commercial on the corner. The changes to the General Plan and Zoning maps are minor and will not change the build -out potential. Therefore, the current proposal has been analyzed in the EIR. To assure that the current proposal is indeed consistent with Alternative No. 2, a technical memo has been prepared, which demonstrates consistency with the Alternative No. 2 analysis in the EIR. It is attached to this staff report as Exhibit A of the EIR Resolution. As described in that memo, the currently proposed project is consistent with the analysis of Alternative No. 2 of the EIR and will not increase the impacts identified for Alternative No. 2 in the EIR. The Draft and Final EIR documents are available at https://www.laguintaca.gov/our-city/city-departments/design-and-development/planning- division/the-wave-at-coral-mountain CEQA clearly states that the purpose of the alternatives is, in part, to "foster informed decision making and public participation." (Guidelines 15126(a)) Alternative No. 2 was analyzed, and it was determined that it would still have significant and unavoidable impacts. It will still require that the City Council consider whether the benefits of the Project outweigh those significant impacts. In order to certify the EIR, Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared. The EIR Resolution includes direction for staff to prepare these documents, and clearly demonstrates that only Alternative No. 2 is being recommended for approval. Prepared by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner Approved by: Danny Castro, Design and Development Director Attachments: 1. Project Information 2. Findings for Approval 3. Vicinity Map 4. Public Comments 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2021020310) FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 750 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A GOLF COURSE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE ON 387 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, NORTH OF AVENUE 60, AND EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET CASE NUMBER: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2019-0010 APPLICANT: CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on January 23, 2024, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CM Wave Development LLC for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Agreement for a master planned community on 386 acres of a 929 acre area located south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, and east and west of Madison Street, more particularly described as: APNs 764-200-076, 764-210-007, 764-210-028, 764-210-029, 766-070-003, 766-070-006, 766-070-012, 766-070-014, 766-080-001, 766-080-002,766-080-004 & 766-080-005 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did consider Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 and its Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH #2021020310), as mandated by State law; and WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on January 12, 2024, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed toall property owners within 500 feet of the site, and emailed or mailed to all interested parties who have requested notification relating to the project; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an EIR for the Coral Mountain Resort Project in June of 2021 (SCH #2021020310); and WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Availability on June 20, 2021, for said EIR and included a public review period from June 22 to August 6, 2021; and WHEREAS, upon the close of the public review period, the City prepared a Final EIR and made it available to all commenters, and to all those who requested to be notified of its release on March 10, 2022; and 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2019-0010 PROJECT: CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN ADOPTED: PAGE 2 OF 3 WHEREAS, the City Council denied the Coral Mountain Resort Project, as previously proposed, on September 21, 2022, and took no action on the EIR; and WHEREAS, the EIR included complete and thorough analysis of five Alternatives, including the No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative (Alternative No. 2); and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a revised project in 2023 which includes General Plan Amendment 2023-1000, Zone Change 2023-1000, Specific Plan Amendment 2023-0003, Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005 and Development Agreement 2023-1000, which would allow the development of up to 750 residential units, a golf course and 60,000 square feet of retail commercial within the same land area as was studied in the EIR; and WHEREAS, the currently proposed project is consistent with Alternative No. 2 as analyzed in the EIR, and as supported by substantial evidence provided in Exhibit A of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the EIR found that although most environmental impacts of Alternative No. 2 can be reduced to less than significant levels, impacts to aesthetic resources, air quality emissions, greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled will remain significant and unavoidable; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following findings to recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2019-0010: 1. That Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. 2. The currently proposed project is consistent with Alternative No. 2 analyzed in the EIR. 3. Alternative No. 2 has the potential to significantly impact aesthetic resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled. 4. Impacts of Alternative No. 2 on all other environmental issue areas can be mitigated to less than significant levels with incorporation of the mitigation measures contained in the EIR and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 5. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of the project. 19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2019-0010 PROJECT: CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN ADOPTED: PAGE 3 OF 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case. SECTION 2. That it does hereby recommend the City Council certify Coral Mountain Resort El (EA2019-0010, SCH #2021020310) for Alternative No. 2 only, analyzing the impacts of existing entitlements, and finding that analysis of Alternative No. 2 is consistent with General Plan Amendment 2023-1000, Zone Change 2023-1000, Specific Plan Amendment 2023-0003, Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005 and Development Agreement 2023-1000, and adopt Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 3. That it hereby directs staff to prepare, for the City Council's consideration, Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on January 23, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California STEPHEN T. NIETO, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California 20 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX - EXHIBIT A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2019-0010 PROJECT: CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN ADOPTED: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Coral Mountain Resort, La Quinta CA CEQA Compliance Memo Club at Coral Mountain — CEQA Compliance Memo for DEIR Alternative 2 1.0 Introduction The Coral Mountain Resort project, processed by the City in 2021 and 2022, proposed the development of a boutique resort and master -planned community on 386 acres, consisting of 600 dwelling units, a surf basin facility on 16.62 acres, 150 hotel rooms and 57,000 square feet of private resort -serving commercial uses, up to 60,000 square feet of retail commercial uses available to the general public, and open space recreational uses at the southwest corner of the project property. To allow these uses, the project proposed an amendment to the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03-067 to remove the 386 -acre site from the existing Specific Plan; a new specific plan (Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan) to establish a new master plan and development standards for the master planned community; a General Plan Amendment to amend the Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Open Space Recreation land use designations to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, and Open Space Recreation; and a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Golf Course to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Parks and Recreation, and Tourist Commercial. Additional entitlements included a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Permit, and Development Agreement (see pages 3-9 through 3-12 of the DEIR for the project description). A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared concurrently to analyze the project under CEQA. The project as proposed at that time, and as analyzed in the DEIR is referred to as the "Preferred Alternative" within this CEQA Compliance Memo. The DEIR also analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the Preferred Alternative, including Alternative 2, the No Project/Existing Entitlement Alternative, which analyzed development of the same project site according to the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations and approved Andalusia Specific Plan (SP 03-067). Alternative 2 would develop the project site with up to 750 single family residential homes, a golf course, and an 8.4 -acre commercial center. Table 1-1 shows the existing land use and zoning summary of the project site as analyzed under Alternative 2. Table 1 Existing Land Use and Zoning Summary Existing Land Use Existing Zoning Acres Square Feet Max. Units General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial (CN) 8.4 60,000 -- Low Density Residential Low Density Residential (RL) 204.2 -- 750 Open Space (Recreation) Golf Course (GC) 171.9 -- -- Total 384.5 60,000 750 Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 1 January 2024 21 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO On September 21, 2022 the La Quinta City Council denied the project, and determined that the project was statutorily exempt from CEQA because the project was disapproved, consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5). As a result, the DEIR was not certified by the City Council. Following the City Council hearing, the project applicant redesigned the proposed project to align with the existing entitlements for the site, including the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03- 067 and the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations, as analyzed in Alternative 2 in the DEIR. The Club at Coral Mountain project addressed in this CEQA Compliance Memo (referred to as "Revised Project" herein) proposes a commercial corner on 7.7 acres allowing up to 60,000 square feet of retail, an 18 -hole golf course on 187.5 acres, and up to 750 residential units on 191.8 acres. The Revised Project is consistent with the existing Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Open Space (Recreation) land use designations that currently exist on the project site. See Section 1.1, below for a full description of the Revised Project. While the Revised Project requires technical amendments to the General Plan land use map and zoning map to modify the layout of the golf course and low density residential acreages, the Revised Project contains the same allowed uses on the same property as Alternative 2 and the existing General Plan land use and zoning map with substantially the same permitted development. Please see Exhibit 1 for the existing and proposal distribution of land use and zoning designations. This Memo identifies and describes the Revised Project and analyzes how it compares to Alternative 2 in the DEIR, and also compares the Revised Project with the previously proposed Preferred Alternative studied in the DEIR. This Memo augments the analysis and comparison of the original Coral Mountain project and the alternatives analysis provided in Chapter 7.0, Alternatives, of the DEIR. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 2 January 2024 22 Exhibit 1 General Plan Map Amendment OS -N � ■■ars' a i� � pati �err rr rs rrlrrrlr rrr� LDR LDR j Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 3 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO F�XLSIING GENERAL PLAN LANs] USE OS -R OPEN SPACE RECREATION CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE OS—R OPEN SPACE RECREATION CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NOTE. THIS GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMEINT WILL ONLY REFINE EXISTING LAND USE BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE WEST TRACT OF SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067. ALL EVSTIfNG GENERAL PLAN [AND USE OESIGNAT(O1NS FOR THE WEST TRACT WILL REMAIN UNALTEREO- January 2024 23 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO The Revised Project — Club at Coral Mountain The Revised Project proposes the same low-density residential, golf, and neighborhood commercial uses allowed under the existing entitlements for the site and analyzed as Alternative 2 in the DEIR (SCH #2021020310). General Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments are proposed to make minor modifications to acreages and distribution of land uses, which are contained in the Specific Plan Amendment. The Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) is proposed to adjust the location and layout of open space—recreation and low-density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of existing land use designations. The Revised Project consists of a commercial corner on 7.7 acres allowing 60,000 square feet of retail, an 18 -hole golf course on 187.5 acres, and up to 750 residential units on 191.8 acres. The tables below indicate a more detailed breakdown of the land use summary and the zoning of the Revised Project. Table 2 Revised Project Land Use and Zoning Summary Land Use Zoning Acres Square Feet Dwelling Units General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial (CN) 7.7 60,000 -- Low Density Residential Low Density Residential (RL) 191.8 46,100 750 Open Space (Recreation) Golf Course (GC) 187.5 -- -- Total 387.0* 106,100 750 *Gross acreage per WSA. Net acreage 384.5 acres. As shown when comparing Tables 1 and 2, above, General Commercial lands would be reduced by 8.5%, Low Density Residential lands would be reduced by 6.1%, and Open Space lands would be increased by 9.1%. Given the limited changes in acreage, and the overall maintenance of the land uses allowed in Planning Areas (PA) III, V and VI, the Revised Project is substantially the same as Alternative 2 analyzed in the EIR, with minor refinements to the layout of golf and residential uses on the same project site as identified in the proposed SPA. The SPA proposes minor changes to the development standards and permitted uses on the west side of Madison Street, and would result in a mix of land uses as shown in Table 3. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 4 January 2024 24 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 3 Revised Project Land Use Summary Planning Area Land Use Land Area (Acres) Square Feet Dwelling Units Single Family' 167.90 -- 730 Sports Club 5.90 24,500 10 Golf Club 4.00 8,600 10 PA III Golf Maintenance 2.00 10,000 -- Restaurants5 0.0 3,000 -- Recreational Lake 12.0 -- PA V Neighborhood Commerciale 7.70 60,000 -- Golf Course Area 181.9 -- PA VI Golf Course Lake 3.0 -- -- Public Right of Way 2.60 -- -- Total 387.04 1061100 750 1. Includes residential homes, entries, streets/circ, amenity areas, landscaped common areas, community OS, Golf Club and Sports Club, each with attached/stacked flats or townhome product and golf course maintenance facility. 2. Commercial/Retail 3. Includes Golf Course and ancillary uses. 4. Gross acreage per WSA 387. Net acreage 864.4 5. Restaurants in PA III are only allowed as part of the clubhouse. The SPA also proposes changes to the Design Guidelines section of the document, to accommodate a more contemporary architectural style. Analysis The following analysis has been prepared to provide a comparative evaluation of the environmental effects of the Revised Project with both Alternative 2 (the No Project/Existing Entitlement Alternative) and the Preferred Alternative (the previously proposed Coral Mountain Resort project) in the DEIR. This analysis utilizes the technical analysis provided in the DEIR regarding air quality, energy resources, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and water consumption as well as updates related to specific modelling including Air Quality, Transportation, Water and Sewer to current standards. For example, at the time the DEIR was written, the 10th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, and CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.2 were the resources utilized to analyze transportation and air quality related impacts, respectively. Since the publication of the DEIR in 2021, ITE trip generation rates and CaIEEMod were updated. ITE 11th Edition updated the trip generation rates, resulting in an increase in trips per land use, while the updates to the CalEEMod software from 2016 version to the 2022 version updated the internal algorithm to produce more accurate outputs regarding air quality, GHG emissions, and energy use. Each CEQA subject is addressed individually below. First, a summary of the analysis of the Preferred Alternative for that issue is provided, followed by a summary of the analysis of Alternative 2. Finally, Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 5 January 2024 25 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO each section provides a comparison of the Revised Project to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 in terms of the level of impact and the need for mitigation, if required. Aesthetics Preferred Alternative The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to scenic quality and visual character, less than significant impacts to scenic resources and light and glare with the implementation of mitigation measures, and significant and unavoidable impacts to scenic vistas. To evaluate the Preferred Alternative's impact to scenic vistas, line of sight and visual simulations were generated for analysis in the DEIR. The residential developments associated with the Preferred Alternative would be visible (i.e., rooflines, landscaping) from public viewsheds. Although the rooflines and landscaping proposed for the Preferred Alternative would be similar to the existing residential developments in the surrounding area, the Preferred Alternative's development of these features would impact views of Coral Mountain and the base views of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Therefore, the DEIR established mitigation measures restricting building heights and increasing setbacks along the public rights-of-way (Mitigation Measures AES -1 and AES -2). However, the mitigation measures cannot reduce impacts to scenic vistas to less than significant levels, so impacts of the Preferred Alternative were determined to be significant and unavoidable. According to the DEIR, scenic resources at the project include Coral Mountain to the southwest and an adobe structure located onsite. The DEIR concluded that because the Preferred Alternative does not propose construction on or immediately adjacent to Coral Mountain, no impacts would occur. The adobe structure, although vandalized, burned, and deteriorated, is considered a historical resource. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 was established for the site. CUL -1 requires that a comprehensive recordation program be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for the site, requiring an appropriate buffer around the adobe and preservation in perpetuity of the adobe by the project homeowners association. This mitigation measure reduced potential impacts to less than significant levels. The DEIR provided an in-depth analysis of the Preferred Alternative's impact to the scenic quality and visual character of the area. The analysis concluded that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to the scenic quality and visual character because the project is surrounded by similar uses in the area, particularly the existing residential communities east and north of the project. Project design and building materials also contributed to the Preferred Alternative not significantly impacting the scenic quality and visual character in the area. The DEIR determined that outdoor lighting associated with landscaping, parking lots, residential, commercial, and resort buildings associated with the Preferred Alternative would comply with the lighting standards outlined in Section 9.100.150 and 9.150.080 of the La Quinta Municipal Code Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 6 January 2024 26 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO (LQMC), and therefore, would result in less than significant impacts. The lighting analysis completed for the proposed 80 -foot light poles around the Wave Basin, determined that they would not impact onsite or offsite areas. Per Section 9.100.150 of the LQMC, the illumination of outdoor recreational facilities is exempt from outdoor lighting standards established in the LQMC, however, they are required to (1) meet shielding requirements and (2) not operate after 10 p.m. To assure that the operation of the Wave Basin would conclude at 10 p.m., the DEIR established Mitigation Measure AES -3, which would limit the operation of the Wave Basin to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. With implementation of this measure, impacts would be less than significant. The DEIR also concluded that the Preferred Alternative building materials would not result in glare, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes a low density residential and golf community consistent with the existing General Plan land uses, zoning and Specific Plan, which is also consistent with the uses in the surrounding area. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts to visual character due to Alternative 2's consistency with the surrounding context and existing Specific Plan (SP 03-067). Homes built under Alternative 2 would comply with the height limits established in the Specific Plan and in Section 9.50.020 of the LQMC. However, similar to the Preferred Alternative, development of Alternative 2 would obstruct views of Coral Mountain. Therefore, impacts associated with scenic vistas were found to be significant and avoidable, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AES -1 and AES -2. Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to the scenic resources that are Coral Mountain and the adobe structure, because the Alternative does not propose development on Coral Mountain, and the Alternative would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL -1 to avoid impacts to the adobe structure. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1, impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant. Alternative 2 would also result in less than significant impacts to light and glare since the Alternative would comply with the outdoor lighting standards established in the LQMC, and would not propose 80 -foot light poles. Thus, Mitigation Measure AES -3 was not applicable to Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not use building materials that would result in glare, similar to the Preferred Alternative. Revised Project The Revised Project's impacts to the surrounding scenic vistas and visual character would be consistent with those uses previously analyzed in the EIR for Alternative 2. Like Alternative 2, the Revised Project proposes low density residential homes along the northern and eastern boundaries. Adjustments to the golf course and residential land use configurations within the project site are proposed as a part of the Revised Project, but these refinements will not alter the appearance of the Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 7 January 2024 27 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO project from the surrounding roadways. The Revised Project would follow the building development standards currently approved in the Specific Plan. Tables 4 and 5 below show the development standards proposed for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. The Revised Project does not propose changes to development standards, and therefore would comply with the development standards in the approved Specific Plan, and as a result are the same and shown in the same column in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 Development Standards Planning Area V — Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Preferred Alt. Max/Min Alt.2 & Revised Project Max/Min Max. Structure Height 35 ftl,2 35 ft.z Max. No. of Stories 2 2 Min. Front Setback 10 ft loft Min. Rear Setback 10 ft loft Min. Parking 1/250 ft GFA. 1/250 ft GLA Max. Building Floor Area in PA 1 60,000 SF 60,000 SF Min. Building Setback to Avenue 58 25 ft 25 ft Min. Building Setback to Madison Street 25 ft 25 ft Min. Setback from Interior Property Linea 0 ft 5/10 ft Min. Building/Landscape Setback from Residential PAI 40 ft/20 ft -- Max. Wall Height 6 ft loft Notes: 1. Height is limited to 22' within 150' of the Madison & Avenue 58 R.O.W. 2. Architectural and roof projections, such as chimneys, spires, finials and similar features not providing habitable or otherwise unusable space shall be permitted to extend up to fifteen feet above the maximum structure height. 3. Mechanical equipment to have a minimum 3 -foot setback from interior property lines. 4. Landscape setback occurs within the building setback. 6. The Specific Plan as previously adopted represents 25% FAR, but what is proposed is 60,000 square feet, which is less than the 25% FAR. 7. Five bicycle parking spaces for each tenant having over twenty thousand square feet of gross floor area. As indicated in the table above, the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project's development standards for structure height, number of stories, setbacks, and parking are the same. The building floor area, setback from interior property line, and wall height for the Preferred Alternative and the Revised Project vary slightly, but not enough to change the impact to scenic vistas. The building floor area proposed for the Preferred Alternative is approximately 22,000 square feet (or 0.5 acres) smaller than the building area for Alternative 2 and the Revised Project; the setback from interior property line varies by 5-10 feet; and wall height varies by 4 feet. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 8 January 2024 28 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 5 Development Standards Planning Area III — Low Density Residential Notes: 1. Detached garages/carports, casitas, carriage house units 2. Height is limited to 22' within 150' of the Madison & Avenue 58 R.O.W. 3. Excluding chimneys, porticos other incidental architectural features etc. may exceed max. structure height by up to 5 feet. 4. AC units, trellis elements, pools, and spas are allowed to encroach into side and rear setback areas within 3' of property line. 5. 0' setback allowed for products, such as duplexes or zero lot line units, that share a common wall. 6. Subject to applicable building code requirements 7. -- = Not Applicable 8. Residence/Clubhouse As indicated in the table above, the development standards for structure height and number of stories are similar between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2/Revised Project. Front, side, and interior setbacks vary between 2 and 10 feet. Finally, maximum wall heights for the Revised Project are 2 to 4 feet higher than those allowed within the Preferred Alternative. However, these differences are subtle and will not change the impacts associated with scenic vistas or visual character. In addition to the commercial and residential land uses, the Preferred Alternative included development of a resort area, recreational open space, and a Wave Basin. Development standards Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 9 January 2024 29 Preferred Alt Alt 2 & Revised Project Detached/ Low Density Residential Detached Attached Accessory Ancillary Product Product Building' Attached Building Product Min. Lot Size 3,600 sf 3,600 sf --' Max. Structure Height 32 ft 2,3 32 ft 2,3 28 ft 2,3 28/35 ft 2,3,8 28 ft 2,3 Max. No. Of Stories 2 2 2 2 1 Min. Area Per Unit 1,400 sf 1,000 sf 250 sf 1,500 sf -- Garage — 10 ft 10 ft street Min. Front Setback 10 ft 10 ft Other 5 ft 2 ft Structures 3 ft. pedestrian Min. Rear Setback 5 ft 5 ft 2 ft -- -- Min. Front/Side Facing Attached Garage (Carport) 15 ft / 3 fts 15 ft / 3 ft -- 5 ft -- Setback Min. Interior/Corner Side 5 ft / 5 ft 5 ft 6 / 5 ft 5 ft 6 / 5 ft 10 ft 10 ft Yard Setback' Min. Building To Building Setback 6 0 ft 0 ft 0 ft -- -- Max. Wall Height 6 ft 6 ft 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 2 garage 2 garage spaces plus spaces plus Per current Max. Parking Required 0.5 guest 0.5 guest code space space Notes: 1. Detached garages/carports, casitas, carriage house units 2. Height is limited to 22' within 150' of the Madison & Avenue 58 R.O.W. 3. Excluding chimneys, porticos other incidental architectural features etc. may exceed max. structure height by up to 5 feet. 4. AC units, trellis elements, pools, and spas are allowed to encroach into side and rear setback areas within 3' of property line. 5. 0' setback allowed for products, such as duplexes or zero lot line units, that share a common wall. 6. Subject to applicable building code requirements 7. -- = Not Applicable 8. Residence/Clubhouse As indicated in the table above, the development standards for structure height and number of stories are similar between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2/Revised Project. Front, side, and interior setbacks vary between 2 and 10 feet. Finally, maximum wall heights for the Revised Project are 2 to 4 feet higher than those allowed within the Preferred Alternative. However, these differences are subtle and will not change the impacts associated with scenic vistas or visual character. In addition to the commercial and residential land uses, the Preferred Alternative included development of a resort area, recreational open space, and a Wave Basin. Development standards Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 9 January 2024 29 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO for these uses were analyzed in the DEIR. Alternative 2 and the Revised Project do not propose the resort, recreational open space, or Wave Basin facility. Instead, Alternative 2 and the Revised Project would develop a golf course. Golf courses provide large areas for greenspace, providing unobstructed views of scenic vistas. The golf course would provide similar views within golf course and residential communities that currently exist within the City of La Quinta, including the property east of Madison Street. Design features of the Revised Project, including architecture, landscaping, and development standards are all required to adhere to the design guidelines in the Specific Plan. The Revised Project's architectural style will be different than the style currently described in SP 03-067, which proposed traditional Spanish -style homes. The Revised Project proposes a Desert Modern architectural style more consistent with current architectural trends. Although the architectural style will be different, the mass and scale and land use proposed for the Revised Project will be similar to the surrounding residential communities, which also include single family residential homes. Additionally, the Revised Project is surrounded by perimeter block wall and landscaping, similar to the existing residential communities in the local area, and will not create inconsistencies with the existing development in the surrounding area, including the existing Andalusia project on the east side of Madison Street. Development of the perimeter block wall and residential homes, as well as perimeter landscaping which would be expected to occur under Alternative 2 and the Revised Project would result in partially obstructed views of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and complete obstruction of Coral Mountain from some locations, since the blockage occurs as a result of the construction of perimeter walls and houses. The impacts of the Revised Project would be equivalent to those analyzed in the DEIR for Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. However, homes built under both the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would comply with Section 9.50.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, which limits building heights to 22 feet, if located within 150 feet of an image corridor (i.e., Avenue 58 and Madison Street). The Revised Project and Alternative 2 would also be required to adhere to design standards as shown in Table 1-4 and 1-5 above. The development of the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would result in equivalent impacts to scenic vistas because they would both include the construction of perimeter walls, landscaping, and homes along the perimeter roadways. Therefore, similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised project would implement Mitigation Measure AES -1, which requires the perimeter walls to be setback from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way by a minimum average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC), which would be confirmed through the City's review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape plans, and Mitigation Measure AES -2, which requires a minimum setback of 75 feet between any residential structure and the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way. As Alternative 2 and the Revised Project would allow development that would affect views of Coral Mountain from certain viewpoints on Avenue 58 and Madison Street, impacts to scenic vistas of Coral Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 10 January 2024 30 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Mountain would be significant and unavoidable under both scenarios. In addition, views of the Santa Rosas would be partially obstructed by the residential structures and perimeter improvements, but the mid-range and ridgelines of the Santa Rosas would generally remain visible. Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 analyses in the DEIR, the Revised Project would result in less than significant impacts to scenic quality and visual character because the project is surrounded by similar uses in the area, particularly the existing residential communities east and north of the project. Building materials proposed for the Revised Project include high-performance materials, natural stone, stucco, architectural concrete, pre -finished metal panels, cementitious panels or siding, and thermally -modified wood siding. Additionally, the single family residential and golf course uses will be surrounded by block walls and landscaping, similar to the existing residential and golf communities in the area. The block walls and landscaping will conceal the property from the view of motorists and pedestrians along the public rights-of-way (Madison Street and Avenue 58). Therefore, the Revised Project would not significantly impact the scenic quality and visual character in the area. The Revised Project and Alternative 2 would both include lighting, consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan and the Municipal Code, including commercial lighting at the neighborhood shopping center at the northeast corner, and residential and safety lighting at the homes and golf course. The lighting would be expected to conform to Municipal Code standards, be shielded and low intensity, and not emit light beyond the property line. Compliance with Specific Plan and Municipal Code requirements would, under both the Revised Project and Alternative 2, ensure that impacts would be less than significant. In summary, the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of the same low-density residential, neighborhood commercial, and golf course uses on the same project site, and accordingly, would result in the same aesthetic impacts. As compared to the Preferred Alternative studied in the DEIR, the Revised Project would have reduced aesthetic impacts because the Revised Project does not include the Wave Basin or surrounding resort area and would not include the Wave Basin lighting. The impacts of the Revised Project are the same as Alternative 2 and no more significant impacts, or impacts not previously analyzed, would result from implementation of the Revised Project. The Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project would be required to implement the following mitigation measures: AES -1 The perimeter walls around the low density residential planning areas shall be setback from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way by a minimum average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC), which shall be confirmed through the City's review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape plans to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 11 January 2024 31 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO AES -2 All residential structures shall be setback by a minimum of 75 feet from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. Air Quality Preferred Alternative The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts involving a conflict with or obstruction to implementation of the applicable air quality plan(s); exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or resulting in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. With respect to any cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, the Preferred Alternative would result in potentially significant impacts due to the potential exceedance of the SCAQMD threshold for VOC from construction and operational activities. As a result, two construction -source mitigation measures (AQ -1 and AQ -2) were provided to prevent the overlap of paving and architectural coating phases during construction (AQ -1) and requiring equipment greater than 150 horsepower to comply with the EPA/CARB Tier 3 emission standards (AQ -2). With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2, construction activities would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure AQ - 3 requires the use of low VOC paints for re -painting and maintenance of exterior structures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113. The DEIR found that, with implementation of the Project Design Features and mitigation measures AQ -1 through AQ -3, the Preferred Alternative would have less than significant impacts to air quality. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation under the existing entitlements, consisting of a low density residential and golf community. Construction impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to those analyzed under the Preferred Alternative, because the same area would be disturbed, and the entire site would be developed. Based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB)'s Draft 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, traffic - related mobile sources contribute a majority of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative 2 is expected to generate 13% more trips compared to the Preferred Alternative due to the number of single-family residential dwelling units and the lack of internal relationships to services and activities associated with the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 would have reduced emissions associated with the production of electricity and water, because it would not include a Wave Basin, and the need for electricity associated with that feature. Although air quality emission increases or decreases are not linear in the CalEEMod model, Alternative 2 would result in elevated emissions associated with vehicle trips. Given that under the Preferred Alternative, the emissions associated Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 12 January 2024 32 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO with NOx, which are directly influenced by vehicle emissions, would be below but close to significance thresholds, Alternative 2 would be expected to have significant NOx emissions, and to require mitigation. As with the proposed project, VOC emissions would also be expected to exceed significance thresholds, and mitigation would be required. For the Preferred Alternative, PDFs and mitigation resulted in an average reduction of 12% to 15% in criteria air pollutant emissions. By comparison, Alternative 2 is expected to achieve a less of a reduction in criteria air pollutant emissions from PDF implementation because Alternative 2 cannot be assumed to include the same level of vehicle trip reductions from commute trip reduction programs, telecommuting and alternative work schedules, employer-sponsored shuttles, on-site photovoltaic electricity supply as PDFs because of the substantially reduced employment levels under Alternative 2 (the other PDFs were assumed to be included in Alternative 2 with equal efficacy). Overall, however, impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be greater than the Preferred Alternative for operations, and equivalent during construction, as further described in the DEIR. Revised Project The Revised Project would involve General Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments to allow for minor modifications to acreages and distribution of land uses, but the proposed low-density residential, golf, and neighborhood commercial uses would be equivalent to the existing entitlements for the site, as it was analyzed for Alternative 2 in the DEIR. The Revised Project would be consistent with the growth projections from the City of La Quinta General Plan as they have been factored into the regional AQMP. As concluded for Alternative 2 and for the Preferred Alternative in the DEIR, the Revised Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQMP. Implementation of the Revised Project would entail construction and operations substantially the same as what is analyzed in Alternative 2 in the EIR. Therefore, construction and operational impacts associated with the Revised Project would be the same as those projected for Alternative 2, because the same area would be disturbed, and the entire site would be developed with the same proposed uses. Like Alternative 2, the Revised Project would require Mitigation Measures AQ -1 to prevent the overlap of construction paving and architectural coating phases, as well as AQ -2 to comply with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emission standards on equipment greaterthan 150 horsepower. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 would help the Revised Project achieve a reduction of construction -related VOC emission levels, while Mitigation Measure AQ -2 would help achieve a reduction of construction -related PM10 emissions below the applicable numeric thresholds to prevent a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment. The DEIR Air Quality analysis for the Preferred Alternative utilized CalEEMod 2016 as the most current software version available at the time of DEIR NOP, to calculate the project emissions and compare them against the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds published in April of 2019. In March of 2023, SCAQMD published updated operational thresholds for VOC and NOx applicable to the Coachella Valley which are lower relative to the 2019 thresholds. The comparison of SCAQMD Air Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 13 January 2024 33 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Quality Significance Thresholds is provided in Table 6. Since the time of DEIR preparation, a more current version of CalEEMod (2022) has also been made available for air emissions calculations. In connection with the CEQA analysis for the Revised Project, Urban Crossroads prepared a supplemental Air Quality & GHG Assessment to provide updated operational emissions calculations for the Revised Project (see Appendix A) using CaIEEMod 2022. The updated emissions calculations and a comparison of those calculations and the operational emissions for the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIR, are provided in Table 7 below. For all criteria air pollutants (NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) except VOC, Alternative 2, the Revised Project and the Preferred Alternative would generate emission levels below the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. The DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would result in increased emissions of VOCs compared to the Preferred Alternative, and the Revised project would have the same level of increased VOC emissions. In addition, these emissions calculations for the Revised Project are considered conservative because they do not include incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ -3, which will require the use of low VOC paints and will reduce the Revised Project's VOC emissions. It should be noted that the table below shows the Preferred Alternative's emissions summary after taking into account Mitigation Measure AQ -3 and the project design features identified in the EIR. Table 6 Comparison of SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Operational Thresholds SCAQMD Air Quality Significance 0 erational Thresholds in Pounds 3er Da Publication Date VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 Aril 2019 75 100 550 150 150 55 March 2023 55 55 550 150 150 55 Table 7 Air Quality Comparison Table Comparison of Operational Emissions in Pounds per Da — Unmiti ated VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 Preferred Alternative 87.49 96.08 242.25 0.64 54.51 16.06 April 2019 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance 75 100 550 150 150 55 Thresholds Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No No No Alternative 2 and Revised Project* 94.64 67.81 501.84 1.13 34.62 7.88 March 2023 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance 55 55 550 150 150 55 Thresholds Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes No No No No *Theoperational emissions for Alternative 2 and the Revised Project are equivalent. Overall, the operational air quality emissions from the Revised Project are considered to be equivalent to and consistent with Alternative 2. The emission levels of Alternative 2 in relation to the SCAQMD Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 14 January 2024 34 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Thresholds are assumed to be comparable to the emission quantities calculated for the Revised Project in Table 7 because of the shared project dimensions and land uses. Although the level of operational VOC emissions under the Revised Project and Alternative 2 are greater than under the Preferred Alternative, this increased impact was fully disclosed in the DEIR and identified as a potentially significant impact under Alternative 2. However, the Revised Project will not have any increased emissions over what was analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR for Alternative 2, and therefore, the Revised Project will not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously disclosed in the DEIR for any criteria air pollutant. In addition, the Revised Project (and Alternative 2) would have reduced emissions for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, as compared to the Preferred Alternative. Moreover, the supplemental Air Quality/GHG assessment by Urban Crossroads demonstrates that the Revised Project will not have a significant impact relating to NOx emissions, as was stated could occur under Alternative 2 in the DEIR. The analysis of Alternative 2 in the DEIR concluded that Alternative 2 would have potentially significant air quality impacts concerning NOx and VOC, and that these impacts would be greater than under the Preferred Alternative. The DEIR concluded that Alternative 2 would result in an increase in daily vehicle trips of approximately 13% as compared to the Preferred Alternative. Although the Revised Project would result in the same increase in daily vehicle trips as Alternative 2 because both scenarios involve exactly the same number of homes, commercial square footage, and golf course development, the increase in land use trip generation rates associated with the updated ITE 11th Edition result in an increase in projected total daily vehicle trips from 7,923 to 8,762, but this approximately 10.5% increase in total trips will not result in any new or substantially more severe air quality impacts because the same increase would apply to Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative if the updated ITE 11th Edition trip generation rates were applied to those scenarios. In addition, the Revised Project (like Alternative 2) would not require as much energy as the Preferred Alternative for treatment of water and for other Wave Basin operations (see pages 7-17 and 7-18 of the DEIR for a more detailed comparison of the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2). Overall, the Revised Project will have the same Air Quality impacts as Alternative 2, and as discussed in the DEIR, these impacts will be greaterthan the Preferred Alternative with respect to operational emissions due to the increased VOC and NOx emissions. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the DEIR. The same mitigation measures as those proposed in the DEIR for the Preferred Alternative would be implemented for the Revised Project, consisting of AQ -1 through AQ -3. Given that the Revised Project would involve the same land use categories, with minor acreage and configuration changes, as those analyzed for Alternative 2 in the DEIR, this development scenario would not include facilities or activities known to generate other emissions, such as those leading to objectionable odors capable of adversely affecting a localized or substantial number of people. Construction of the Revised Project would result in temporary equipment exhaust and the application Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 15 January 2024 35 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO of asphalt and architectural coatings that would emit short-term and intermittent odors detectable at close proximity, consistent with the DEIR findings for Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative, but the localized and regional emission levels would be mitigated specifically for VOC and PM10 to below the applicable thresholds to prevent a cumulative considerable increase or condition adversely affecting a substantial number of people. During the life of the project, the Revised Project would involve the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) in covered containers and removed at regular intervals as a standard function of operational waste management, consistent with Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. Operation of the Revised Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge, from any source whatsoever, of air contaminants, odors, or other material at quantities resulting in injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public. Pertaining to other construction or operational emissions, including those associated with objectionable odors, the Revised Project would result in less than significant impacts. Construction -Source Mitigation Measures AQ -1: During Phase 1 of construction, the paving installation activity shall not overlap with the architectural coating (building painting) activity. That prohibition shall be included on all building plans. AQ -2: For equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards shall be required, and all construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Operational -Source Mitigation Measures AQ -3: The project will require the use of low VOC paints for re -painting and maintenance of exterior structures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113(not to exceed 50 grams per liter VOCs for interior and exterior building envelope re -painting). Under federal and state law, SCAQMD is under a legal obligation to enforce air pollution regulations. These regulations are primarily meant to ensure that the surrounding (or ambient) air meets federal and state air quality standards. The South Coast AQMD also has broad authority to regulate toxic and hazardous air emissions, and these regulations are enforced in the same manner as those which pertain to the ambient air quality standards. Biological Resources Preferred Alternative The DEIR identified seven federally/State listed species as having the potential to occur in the project vicinity. These include the Coachella Valley milkvetch, triple -ribbed milkvetch, Casey's June beetle, desert pupfish, desert slender salamander, Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and the Peninsular Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 16 January 2024 36 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO bighorn sheep (PBS). However, it was determined that the project site contains suitable habitat for only one species, the Coachella Valley milkvetch (CVMV), which is covered under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Therefore, payment of a development fee would mitigate any impacts to the CVMV. The Preferred Alternative would not affect any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status. Additionally, Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS), which are Federally listed as Endangered, State -listed as Threatened, a California Fully Protected Species, and CVMSHCP covered species, have been identified in elevated terrain in La Quinta, and PBS habitat occurs in the vicinity of the project site with known PBS visits to the adjacent Coral Mountain. Potential impacts to PBS were determined to be less than significant because the project includes construction of a new sheep barrier along the western boundary of the project site, consistent with the sheep fence being installed in other areas in La Quinta adjacent to PBS habitat. There are no jurisdictional waters regulated pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and no lakes, rivers, or streambeds regulated pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code by the CDFW are present within the limits of the project site. Therefore, development of the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans. The site does not contain, nor is adjacent to, federally protected wetlands, marshes or other drainage features. No blue -line stream corridors (streams or dry washes) are shown on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps for the project site nor are there botanical indicators of such corridors. As a result, implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in the direct removal, filling or other hydrological interruption to federally protected wetlands. The DEIR (and supporting technical reports) found no evidence of migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites on the project site or adjacent properties, and the Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to have significant impacts related to habitat fragmentation and regional wildlife movement. Although burrowing owls were not observed onsite during the field investigation, the site provides suitable habitat for the species and the owls can take up residence on the site at any time. Therefore, a pre -construction burrowing owl survey (Mitigation Measure BI0-1) was required using accepted protocol (as determined by CDFW) to reduce the impact to less than significant levels. The project site also contains suitable roosting and foraging habitat for multiple bat species. Therefore, to avoid impacts to all potential bat species which may occur on the site, maternity -season surveys and follow-up actions were provided in Mitigation Measure BI0-2 through BI0-5, reducing impacts to roosting bats to less than significant levels. Finally, to reduce the impact to potential nesting birds that could occur onsite to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measure BIO -6 requires vegetation removal to be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (January 15 through August 31) to ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. Any vegetation removal and/or construction activities that occur during the nesting season will Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 17 January 2024 37 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO require that all suitable habitat be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qu Finally, the DEIR addressed the City's participation in the CVMSHCP, and required the payment of mandated fees to mitigate impacts to species covered by the Plan in Mitigation Measure 13I0-6.alified biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. Moreover, development of the Preferred Alternative would not conflict with any local policy relating to these species, because the City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance that protects any of the tree species that occur onsite. Alternative 2 The Alternatives analysis in the DEIR determined that impacts to biological resources would be consistent with the Preferred Alternative because the same physical area would be developed, and any development that would occur onsite would be subject to Mitigation Measures 13I0-1 through 13I0-6, listed above. The mitigation measures would also be imposed for development of Alternative 2 to reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels. The DEIR concluded that Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to biological resources since both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 would result in development of the 384.5 -acre property. However, impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels under both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2. Revised Project The Revised Project would result in similar impacts to biological resources, compared to both Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the DEIR, because the same area of land would be disturbed. Development of the site could impact the CVMV, which is covered under the CVMSHCP. Therefore, the Revised Project would be required to pay the development fee to mitigate any impacts to the CVMV. Impact to any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status would be reduced to less than significant levels. Consistent with all Alternatives in the DEIR, the site does not contain, nor is adjacent to, jurisdictional waters, lakes, rivers, or streambeds, federally protected wetlands, marshes or other drainage features. No blue -line stream corridors (streams or dry washes) are shown on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps for the project site nor are there botanical indicators of such corridors. As a result, implementation of the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, or the Revised Project would not result in the direct removal, filling or other hydrological interruption to federally protected wetlands, or impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 18 January 2024 38 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO As discussed above, development of the site could impact burrowing owls, nesting birds, or bats if they were to occur onsite. Therefore, under the Revised Project, as with Alternative 2, the actions required by Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through 13I0-6 would be applied, reducing impacts to these species to less than significant levels. Moreover, development of the Revised Project would not conflict with any local policy relating to these species, because the City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance that protects any of the tree species that occur onsite. Finally, the Revised Project would be required to pay mandated fees to mitigate impacts to species covered by the CVMSHCP in Mitigation Measure 1310-6. As established in Section 4.3, Biological Resources of the DEIR, development of the 384.5 -acre property would impact onsite biological resources, therefore, mitigation is recommended to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. The mitigation measures were: BI0-1: Burrowing owl surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist, approved by the City prior to any site disturbance activities. A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site disturbance activities. If disturbance activities are expected to start during the burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys shall be completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre -construction survey shall be conducted following accepted protocol and the requirements specified in the CVMSHCP (see pp. 4-168 & 4-169). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will surveythe construction area and an area up to 500 feet outside the project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged, and a 160 -foot diameter buffer will be established during non -breeding season or a 250 -foot diameter buffer during the breeding season. The buffer area will be staked and flagged. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow. If the burrow is found to be unoccupied, the burrow will be made inaccessible to owls, and construction may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied, owls shall be relocated pursuant to accepted Wildlife Agency protocols. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures, consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP. BI0-2: In June 2021, a qualified bat biologist will conduct a second round of focused nighttime surveys for roosting bats at locations where suitable roosting habitat is identified. The nighttime Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 19 January 2024 39 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO survey will include a combination of acoustic and exit count methods, and will take place during the bat maternity season (March 15—August 31 in the Coachella Valley) to enable detection of maternity -roosting bats. If maternity roosts are identified within the project area, the biologist will coordinate with CDFW to implement avoidance measures during the bat maternity season in accordance with CDFW's established standards. No construction activities will occur within a 300 -foot buffer of maternity roost sites during the bat maternity season unless concurrence is received from CDFW to reduce that buffer distance based upon the bat species present and the activities occurring. BI0-3: Removal of trees (including palm trees) shall occur outside the bat maternity season (March 15—August 31 in the Coachella Valley), which coincides with the bird nesting season, to avoid the potential for "take" of flightless young. Trees and snags that have been identified as confirmed or potential roost sites require a two-step removal process and the involvement of a bat biologist to ensure that no roosting bats are killed during this activity. Consistent with CDFW protocols this two-step removal shall occur over two consecutive days as follows: on Day 1, branches and limbs not containing cavities, as identified by a qualified bat biologist, will be removed. On Day 2, the remainder of the tree may be removed without supervision by a bat biologist. The disturbance caused by limb removal, followed by an interval of one evening, will allow bats to safely abandon the roost. BI0-4: To avoid impacts to roosting bats from the installation of new light fixtures associated with the proposed development, all lighting fixtures shall have light shields or similar devices (i.e., dark sky compliant lighting) installed to ensure that there is no light trespass on to Coral Mountain and surrounding open space. BI0-5: A qualified bat biologist shall confirm the absence of roosting bats prior to any restoration work or other disturbance of the adobe site. If bats are found or if the absence of bats cannot be confirmed, the bat biologist will install or directly supervise installation of humane eviction devices and exclusionary material to prevent bats from roosting in the building. Implementation of the humane eviction/exclusions is typically performed in the fall (September or October) preceding construction activity at each structure to avoid impacts to hibernating bats during the winter months or during the maternity season (March 15—August 31 in the Coachella Valley), when nonvolant (flightless) young are present. Any humane eviction/exclusion devices must be installed at least 10 days prior to the demolition of a structure housing bats to allow sufficient time for the bats to vacate the roost(s). BI0-6: To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities shall be conducted outside the general bird nesting season. Any vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and/or construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 1— August 31) will require that all suitable habitats be surveyed for the presence of nesting birds Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 20 January 2024 40 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO by a qualified biologist approved by the City. Prior to commencement of clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys within 14 days and repeated 3 days prior to ground -disturbing activities. If any active nests are detected a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using his or her best professional judgment. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using his or her best professional judgment to avoid any take of nesting birds. In response to CDFW comments, the following mitigation measures were added to the EIR to address construction and operational noise on wildlife using Coral Mountain, project landscaping, lake maintenance, and Peninsular bighorn sheep: BI0-7: To ensure that the Project will avoid any significant construction or operational noise impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain, noise monitoring will occur for all construction activities using heavy equipment within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. If noise levels exceed 75 dBA, construction or operational changes or other modifications shall be made, as directed by the project biologist to reduce the noise levels at Coral Mountain to below 75 dBA. BI0-8: Existing native vegetation, particularly palo verde trees, will be retained where feasible. Landscaping shall include native desert species. BI0-9: Onsite lakes will be designed and constructed by industry professionals and will incorporate proper aeration, circulation and filtration to maintain a balanced lake ecosystem. Lakes will be stocked with beneficial fish and plant species. Limited chemical applications will be utilized as necessary. Ongoing maintenance will ensure that onsite lakes function properly to control any invasive species or other nuisance conditions. BIO -10: An education program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the commercial, open space, and low-density community through the use of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what threats this species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these threats. This includes information that explains: (1) why restrictions on toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 21 January 2024 41 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO With the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -7 through BIO -10, impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain, native desert species, lake ecosystems, and Peninsular bighorn sheep would be reduced to less than significant levels. All mitigation measures identified in the DEIR (with the exception of the Wave Basin lighting measure which is no longer applicable) would also be imposed for development of the Revised Project to reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels. The Revised Project, like Alternative 2, proposes a golf course, thus providing suitable grazing habitat for the sheep. Therefore, as a part of project design, the Revised Project would include a sheep protection plan to ensure that PBS are restricted from entering the project. The sheep protection plan includes implementation of fencing/walls along the entire project perimeter as a physical barrier to prevent PBS from accessing the site, as well as an approved native species plant palette to avoid specimens listed as "prohibited invasive ornamental plants" in certain open space areas and on lots adjoining any sheep barrier, consistent with the sheep protection plan included with the Preferred Alternative. Accordingly, the Revised Project (like Alternative 2) will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts to biological resources than previously analyzed in the DEIR for either Alternative 2 or the Preferred Alternative. Cultural Resources Preferred Alternative As discussed in the DEIR, the project site previously operated as an agricultural business until the late 20th century before being abandoned in the 1990s. Remains of the agricultural operations include a partially collapsed adobe, which has been recorded into the California Historical Resources Inventory. Although the survey completed for the DEIR determined that the adobe has been vandalized, burned, and further deteriorated, it still remains eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. Therefore, to avoid impacts to this site, no earth moving activities shall occur until the site is fenced and flagged; a comprehensive recordation project of the site has been completed; and preservation and stabilization of the remains in place as a community feature with an informational plaque has been completed, as described in Mitigation Measure CUL -1. CUL -1 also requires the preservation of the site in perpetuity by the Homeowners' Association for the project. The implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would reduce impacts to the adobe site to less than significant levels. As stated in the DEIR, the vast majority of the previously recorded cultural resources within a one - mile radius of the project site (62 sites and 48 isolates) were prehistoric. The sites mainly consisted of ceramic lithic scatters with some bedrock milling features, ground stone artifacts, and the remnants of fire hearths. A total of eight sites and seven isolates are known to be present within or partially within the project boundary today. Only three sites constitute an archaeological and historical resource. Three of the sites contain panels of rock art as well as milling features and ceramics Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 22 January 2024 42 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO contributory to the rock art panel areas. The technical analysis determined that the sites are also eligible for listing in the California Register. Therefore, fencing and delineation of the area prior to any development activity, the long-term protection of these sites, through prohibition of development, and the recordation of protective easements, as well as a program of research and documentation of the sites, were required as Mitigation Measure CUL -5 to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL -2 and CUL -3 require monitoring on the site for all earth moving activities by both an archaeological and Tribal monitor. Finally, all construction workers were required to receive sensitivity training during all aspects and phases of project construction (CUL -4). In addition to the findings of the archaeologist, the City conducted Tribal consultation in conformance with SB 18 and AB 52. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians requested consultation, and informed the City that this area is of high sensitivity to the Cahuilla people. A number of mitigation measures were recommended by the Tribe. To avoid the disturbance of any human remains, the project was required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has examined the remains. In addition, CUL -2 and CUL -3, which require on-site monitoring, will ensure that ground disturbing activities are observed by experts who can recognize such resources if unearthed. The mitigation measures which were applied to the Preferred Alternative were: CUL -1: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to preserve the information on the adobe building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project's Homeowners Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre -1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun -colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 23 January 2024 43 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20' century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al.1998:54). CUL -2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and activities. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. CUL -3: An approved Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Native American Cultural Resource Monitor shall be present during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys) for the project. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the Tribal monitor can assess the significance of the find. CUL -4: Prior to ground disturbance during any phase of the project, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all workers, conducted by the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). CUL -5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contains the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project construction through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Deed restrictions shall be recorded for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas and provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance of any portion of Planning Area III. For the balance of Site 33-001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to ground disturbance to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI and their approval provided to the City in writing prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site. Alternative 2 Since Alternative 2 would develop the same acreage as the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures CUL -1 through CUL -5; therefore, reducing Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 24 January 2024 44 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO impacts to existing cultural resources onsite, potential onsite cultural resources, and human remains to less than significant levels. Revised Project Since the Revised Project, like Alternative 2, would disturb the same physical area as the Preferred Alternative, the impacts will be consistent with the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, all of the mitigation measures applied to the Preferred Alternative would be applied to both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project, and impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. Energy Preferred Alternative Construction: During construction, the Preferred Alternative would consume 57,987.3 kWh of electricity, 813,083 gallons of diesel, and 498,139 gallons of gasoline, as determined in the DEIR. Consumption of natural gas would not occur during construction. The estimated construction electricity usage represents approximately 0.67 percent of the Preferred Alternative's estimated annual operational demand, which, as discussed below, would be within the supply and infrastructure service capabilities of IID. Additionally, there are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities, or use of equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Mitigation Measure AQ -2 requires that off-road diesel construction equipment (greater than 150 horsepower) complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards. The implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -2 would assist in reducing construction -related gasoline consumption at the project site, and project construction would not consume petroleum in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Operation: The Preferred Alternative would consume approximately 8,642,729 kWh of electricity annually, 21,855,400 kBTU of natural gas annually, and 749,717 gallons of petroleum annually, per the DEIR. The Preferred Alternative would implement the use of photovoltaic (PV) systems to generate 15 percent of the power demand, high efficiency lighting, and applying energy efficient design building shells and building components, such as windows, roof systems, electrical lighting systems, and heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems to meet Building Code standards in effect at the time development occurs. The project would also be required to install water efficient plumbing fixtures and irrigation systems, light -emitting diode (LED) technology within homes, use recycled water (non - potable) for common area landscape irrigation, use drought -tolerant plants in landscape design, install Energy Star appliances, and install tankless water heater systems. These are required by State Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 25 January 2024 45 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Tile 24 and CalGreen standards. The Preferred Alternative would also reduce vehicle miles traveled and thus petroleum fuel consumption by providing a mix of various land uses onsite, and pedestrian and multi -modal connections between the land uses. With the implementation of the standards and requirements above, the DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to energy resources. The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative's energy consumption would not exceed the City's, IID's, or SoCal Gas's capacity for their respective service area (with implementation of the infrastructure improvements described in the project description and the Utilities and Service Systems discussion). The DEIR also analyzed the Preferred Alternative's consistency with State and local energy plans, including EPA/CARB Tier 3 Emissions Standards, Title 24, La Quinta's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, and the City's General Plan. Due to the mixed-use nature of the Preferred Alternative, and the project's implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -2 during construction, and the standards and requirements imposed by State and local agencies, the DEIR concluded that the Preferred Alternative was consistent with the State and local energy plans. Alternative 2 Construction: Short-term energy consumption related to construction activities would be similar during development of both Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative, since they both would develop the same project area. Both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 would consume 57,987.3 kWh of electricity, 813,083 gallons of diesel, and 498,139 gallons of gasoline, as determined in the DEIR. Therefore, like the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would not result in excessive or unnecessary energy consumption. Operation: As analyzed in the DEIR, Alternative 2 would not result in the development of the tourist commercial portion of the site, which includes the Wave Basin, associated light fixtures, hotel uses, and ancillary resort commercial uses. Based on calculations using CalEEMod (Version 2016.3.2), the DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would require 5,071,006 kWh in electric power, and 13,182,066.5 kBTU in natural gas annually. Table 8 Alternative 2 Energy Use Land Use Electricity KWh Natural Gas kBTU 750 Residential (Low Density) 4,614,495* 13,182,066.5 60,000 sf Commercial 456,511 98,400 Golf 0 0 Total 5,071,006 13,280,466.5 Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 26 January 2024 46 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO *This number was determined by using the project's kWh value, dividing it by 496 (the project's proposed low density residential number) to receive the amount of electricity per residential unit (6,152.66 kWhr). Then 6,152.66 kWhr was multiplied by 750 to determine how much electricity 750 dwelling units would consume. The same was completed for natural gas. The DEIR compared electricity and natural gas consumed by Alternative 2 to the Preferred Alternative and determined that electricity and natural gas would be reduced by 41 percent and 40 percent, respectively (see table below). This is a result of replacing the resort uses included in the Preferred Alternative with more single-family homes and a golf course. Table 9 Energy Consumption Comparison However, updates to the CalEEMod modeling system to generate more accurate outputs have occurred since the DEIR was written. These updates result in increased operational electricity and natural gas consumption totals (compared to CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 model) and are provided in the Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment included in Appendix A. The Assessment concluded that the operation of 750 residential homes, a golf course, and commercial uses would consume 7,891,477 kWh per year of electricity, and 27,076,002 kBTU per year of natural gas. It is important to note that the increase in energy use between Alternative 2 and the Revised Project is solely the result of the CalEEMod update, as the proposed uses remain the same. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would be required to implement State and local standards for energy efficiency as described above to meet Building Code standards in effect at the time development occurs. Alternative 2 is anticipated to have a higher daily VMT and per capita VMT because it generates more daily trips because it lacks the complimentary mix of uses on-site and enhanced connectivity between those uses which reduce per capita VMT. Alternative 2 was expected to generate 13% more trips compared to the Preferred Alternative due to the increased number of single-family residential dwelling units and reduction in internal trip capture. The proposed 60,000 square feet of commercial uses at the corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street would continue to result in a reduction in trips due to trip capture in Alternative 2. Therefore, due to the increased vehicle trips associated with the 750 residential units, Alternative 2 would result in an approximately 13% increased petroleum consumption compared to the Preferred Alternative, which equates to 831,228 gallons of petroleum consumed annually. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 27 January 2024 47 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Percent Source Units Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Difference Electricity Total kWh/yr 5,071,006 8,642,729 41% less Natural Gas Total kBTU/yr 13,280,466.5 21,855,400 40% less However, updates to the CalEEMod modeling system to generate more accurate outputs have occurred since the DEIR was written. These updates result in increased operational electricity and natural gas consumption totals (compared to CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 model) and are provided in the Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment included in Appendix A. The Assessment concluded that the operation of 750 residential homes, a golf course, and commercial uses would consume 7,891,477 kWh per year of electricity, and 27,076,002 kBTU per year of natural gas. It is important to note that the increase in energy use between Alternative 2 and the Revised Project is solely the result of the CalEEMod update, as the proposed uses remain the same. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would be required to implement State and local standards for energy efficiency as described above to meet Building Code standards in effect at the time development occurs. Alternative 2 is anticipated to have a higher daily VMT and per capita VMT because it generates more daily trips because it lacks the complimentary mix of uses on-site and enhanced connectivity between those uses which reduce per capita VMT. Alternative 2 was expected to generate 13% more trips compared to the Preferred Alternative due to the increased number of single-family residential dwelling units and reduction in internal trip capture. The proposed 60,000 square feet of commercial uses at the corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street would continue to result in a reduction in trips due to trip capture in Alternative 2. Therefore, due to the increased vehicle trips associated with the 750 residential units, Alternative 2 would result in an approximately 13% increased petroleum consumption compared to the Preferred Alternative, which equates to 831,228 gallons of petroleum consumed annually. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 27 January 2024 47 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 10 Petroleum Consumption Comparison Additionally, under either alternative, fuel efficiencies are anticipated to increase during the lifetime of the project, as older vehicles are replaced with newer more efficient models (including plug-in hybrid, and zero emission vehicles). Thus, petroleum use is anticipated to decrease over time. Overall, development and operation of the Preferred Alternative or Alternative 2 would not result in excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption or cause any significant impacts regarding energy resources due to the compliance with State and local energy -efficiency standards. Revised Project Due to the undeveloped and vacant nature of the site, the 384.5 -acre site does not currently consume energy resources and electricity and natural gas facilities are not currently provided to the site. As would be the case with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, development and operation of the Revised Project would result in an increase of energy consumption at the site. Construction Short-term energy consumption related to construction activities during development of the Revised Project will be the same as under Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative because they would use similar amounts of electricity fortools and construction trailers, and petroleum fuels for the operation of machinery, large equipment, and employee vehicle trips. Natural gas would not be required during construction activities under any alternative, including the Revised Project. The table below illustrates construction -related energy use for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project, since all scenarios would develop the exact same acreage. Table 11 Summary of Energy Use During Construction Fuel Type Preferred Alternative Annual Fuel Consumption Alternative 2 Annual Fuel Consumption Percent Difference Gallons Petroleum 749,717 847,180 13% more Additionally, under either alternative, fuel efficiencies are anticipated to increase during the lifetime of the project, as older vehicles are replaced with newer more efficient models (including plug-in hybrid, and zero emission vehicles). Thus, petroleum use is anticipated to decrease over time. Overall, development and operation of the Preferred Alternative or Alternative 2 would not result in excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption or cause any significant impacts regarding energy resources due to the compliance with State and local energy -efficiency standards. Revised Project Due to the undeveloped and vacant nature of the site, the 384.5 -acre site does not currently consume energy resources and electricity and natural gas facilities are not currently provided to the site. As would be the case with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, development and operation of the Revised Project would result in an increase of energy consumption at the site. Construction Short-term energy consumption related to construction activities during development of the Revised Project will be the same as under Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative because they would use similar amounts of electricity fortools and construction trailers, and petroleum fuels for the operation of machinery, large equipment, and employee vehicle trips. Natural gas would not be required during construction activities under any alternative, including the Revised Project. The table below illustrates construction -related energy use for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project, since all scenarios would develop the exact same acreage. Table 11 Summary of Energy Use During Construction Fuel Type Units Total Construction Energy Use Electricity kWh 57,987.3 Diesel Gallons 813,086 Gasoline Gallons 498,139 Notes: Electricity for the project is total construction usage. Mobile gasoline and diesel usage were calculated using the figures provided in the CaIEEMod model. Because construction activities associated with the Revised Project would be the same as Alternative 2, impacts would be similar and less than significant. Operation Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 28 January 2024 48 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO As stated above, the electricity and natural gas consumption values utilized in the DEIR were generated using the most recent version of CalEEMod at the time the DEIR was prepared (Version 2016.3.2). CalEEMod has since updated its model. These updates result in increased operational electricity and natural gas consumption totals (compared to CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 model) as shown in the Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment. The Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment concluded that the operation of 750 residential homes, a golf course, and commercial uses would consume 7,891,477 kWh per year of electricity, and 27,076,002 kBTU per year of natural gas. The revised emissions between the two versions of the model are shown in Table 12. A comparison of the differences between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 as analyzed in the EIR, and the Revised Project analyzed under the current model, is provided in Table 13. Table 12 Alternative 2/Revised Project Energy Consumption Comparison V2016.3.2 Versus V2022.1.1.13 Source Units Energy Consumption Energy Consumption o Delta (/) Source Units 2016.3.2 2022.1.1.13 Electricity Total kWh/yr 5,071,006 7,891,477 55% Natural Gas Total kBTU/yr 13,280,466.5 27,076,002 104% Table 13 Operational Energy Consumption Comparison Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would be required incorporate energy efficient features to meet Building Code standards in effect at the time development occurs. The project would be required to comply with Title 24 and CalGreen requirements related to energy efficiency. As compared to the Preferred Alternative (indicated in Table 13 above), the Revised Project will use 751,252 kWh/year (8.7%) less electricity due to the elimination of the Wave Basin and resort uses. While the Revised Project is calculated to use 5,220,602 kBTU/year (24%) more natural gas than the Preferred Alternative, this is solely due to the changes in CalEEMod modeling. In reality, the Revised Project (like Alternative 2) would use substantially less natural gas than the Preferred Alternative (as shown in Table 13 above). As determined in the DEIR, the Wave Basin would result in the use of 1,528,430 kWh of electricity per year, and the resort uses would consume 3,260,870 kWh per year of electricity and 523,643 kBTU of natural gas per year. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 29 January 2024 49 Preferred Alternative Alternative 2 Revised Project Source Units CalEEMod 2016.3.2 CalEEMod 2016.3.2 CalEEMod 2022.1.1.13 Electricity Total kWh/yr 8,642,729 5,071,006 7,891,477 Natural Gas Total kBTU/yr 21,855,400 13,280,466.5 27,076,002 Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would be required incorporate energy efficient features to meet Building Code standards in effect at the time development occurs. The project would be required to comply with Title 24 and CalGreen requirements related to energy efficiency. As compared to the Preferred Alternative (indicated in Table 13 above), the Revised Project will use 751,252 kWh/year (8.7%) less electricity due to the elimination of the Wave Basin and resort uses. While the Revised Project is calculated to use 5,220,602 kBTU/year (24%) more natural gas than the Preferred Alternative, this is solely due to the changes in CalEEMod modeling. In reality, the Revised Project (like Alternative 2) would use substantially less natural gas than the Preferred Alternative (as shown in Table 13 above). As determined in the DEIR, the Wave Basin would result in the use of 1,528,430 kWh of electricity per year, and the resort uses would consume 3,260,870 kWh per year of electricity and 523,643 kBTU of natural gas per year. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 29 January 2024 49 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Energy use was not considered excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary under the Preferred Alternative or Alternative 2, and thus not a significant effect. Accordingly, the reduced energy consumption of the Revised Project would also not be considered excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary. The Revised Project (like Alternative 2) will generate approximately 13% more daily trips than the Preferred Alternative, and thus result in approximately 97,463 more gallons of petroleum consumed compared to the Preferred Alternative (see Table 10, above) However, this is the same increase in daily trips analyzed in the DEIR for Alternative 2, and accordingly, does not constitute a substantial increase beyond what was analyzed in the DEIR. Additionally, as is the case for all alternatives, fuel efficiencies are anticipated to increase during the lifetime of the project, as older vehicles are replaced with newer more efficient models (including plug-in hybrid, and zero emission vehicles). Thus, petroleum use is anticipated to decrease overtime. Overall, development and operation under all three scenarios (the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project) would not result in excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption or significant impacts regarding energy resources due to the compliance with State and local energy -efficiency standards. Geology and Soils Preferred Alternative The DEIR, in the analysis of geology and soils, determined that development proposed in the Preferred Alternative is not located near an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or near areas impacted by landslides. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Development would also be required to comply with State seismic standards for construction to lessen impacts of seismic shaking. The DEIR also determined that impacts associated with erosion (waterborne and or airborne) would be less than significant with compliance to existing regulatory requirements, such as the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Soil conditions (i.e., the identification of liquefaction, collapsible soils, expansive soils onsite) were studied in the project - specific Geotechnical Report, which determined that impacts of unstable soil conditions would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. Development of the property would be required to comply with the recommendations provided in the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix G of the DEIR) to ensure the onsite soils can support the proposed foundations and structures (Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2). In order to avoid impacts to potential paleontological resources onsite, the DEIR required the implementation of mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The property would be required to retain a qualified paleontological monitor during all earth -moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet (GEO-3). With implementation of this measure, impacts were determined to be less than significant. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 30 January 2024 50 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Mitigation measures specifically state: GEO-1 All designs for any water body on the site shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and comply with all seismic codes in effect at the time they are constructed. All designs shall be based on and incorporate the recommendation of a qualified soils engineer in a site and water body specific report attached to the plans submitted to the City. GEO-2 All earthwork including excavation, backfill and preparation of the subgrade soil, shall be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations, presented below, and portions of the local regulatory requirements, as applicable. All earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing of a qualified soil engineer. The following geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed project are based on observations from the field investigation program, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analyses. • Stripping: areas to be graded shall be cleared of the vegetation, associated root systems and debris. All areas scheduled to receive fill should be cleared of old fills and any irreducible matter. The stripping shall be removed off -sit or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas. Undocumented fill soil or loose soil shall be removed in its entirety and replaced as engineered fill. Voids left by obstruction shall be properly backfilled in accordance with the compaction recommendations of this report. • Preparation of the Residential Building Areas: in order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, the primary foundation bearing soil shall be over - excavated and recompacted. Over -excavation shall extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet blow the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. Once adequate removals have been verified, the exposed native soil shall be scarified, the moisture -conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. • Compaction: Soil to be used as engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris and other deleterious substances, and shall not contain irreducible matter greater than six (6) inches in maximum dimension. All fill materials shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding six inches in a loose condition. If import fill is required, the material shall be of a non -expansive nature and shall meet the following criteria: Plastic Index Less than 12 Liquid Limit Less than 35 Percent Soil Passing #200 Sieve Between 15% and 35% Maximum Aggregate Size 3 Inches The subgrade and all fill material shall be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The bottom of the exposed Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 31 January 2024 51 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO subgrade shall be observed by a representative of Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials. • Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill shall be anticipated. It is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted shall be between 1 and 3 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained. GEO-3 All earth -moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor and continuous monitoring will become necessary if undisturbed, potentially fossiliferous lakebed sediments are encountered. The monitor shall be empowered to stop earth moving activities if fossils are identified. The monitor shall be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. A monitoring plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any earth moving permit, or the disturbance of any soils on the site, which will include: • Samples of sediments shall be collected and processed to recover small fossil remains. • Recovered specimens shall be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance when appropriate, shall be prepared upon completion of the research procedures outlined above. The report shall be provided to the City within 30 days of the conclusion of monitoring activities. Alternative 2 As was the case for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would not result in development in a fault zone, or next to a slope, since the land to be developed is the same. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, development of Alternative 2 would also be required to comply with State seismic standards for construction to lessen impacts of seismic shaking. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3, provided for the Preferred Alternative, also would apply to Alternative 2 to address impacts associated with seismic -related ground failure, ground subsidence, collapsible soils, corrosive soils, and paleontological resources, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant levels. Revised Project Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 32 January 2024 52 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO As was the case for the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would not result in development in a fault zone, or next to a slope, since the land to be developed is the same. Development would be required to comply with State seismic standards for construction to lessen impacts of seismic shaking. As identified in the DEIR impacts concerning erosion (waterborne and soil) would be less than significant with compliance to existing regulatory requirements, such as the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The Revised Project would be required to implement these same requirements during construction. The Revised Project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 to reduce impacts of onsite soils to from liquefaction, expansion, and soil collapse. The Revised Project would introduce lakes throughout the golf course area for retention and aesthetic purposes, similar to those proposed in Alternative 2. These features are typical for golf courses and would be required to comply with seismic standards for construction. Finally, as would occur under any alternative, paleontological resources could occur onsite due to the undisturbed subsurface lakebed sediments from Holocene Lake Cahuilla, which are considered to have high paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-3 requires that all earthmoving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. Under any of the alternatives or the Revised Project, this mitigation measure reduces impacts to less than significant levels. As would be the case for Alternative 2, the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR would be applied to the Revised Project to address impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure, ground subsidence, collapsible soils, corrosive soils, and paleontological resources, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant levels. As analyzed in the EIR, Alternative 2 would result in similar, less than significant effects relating to geology and soils, and the same analysis and conclusions apply equally to the Revised Project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Preferred Alternative The DEIR found that the Preferred Alternative would not conflict with regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, specifically based on consistency with the applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Update aimed to achieve a statewide reduction in GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, resulting in less than significant impacts on plan conformance. The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in potentially significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. The DEIR found that the amortized annual construction emissions, events emissions, and operational project emissions from the Preferred Alternative would total approximately 17,270.47 MTCO2e per year, without PDFs and mitigation (See Table 14 below). When Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 33 January 2024 53 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO adjusted for the service population of 2,672, the unmitigated GHG emissions resulted in a service population efficiency of 6.46 MTCO2e per SP per year, exceeding the threshold of 3.65 MTCO2e per SP per year and warranting the use of carbon credits to off -set the totals to the extent of meeting the service population efficiency target. Implementation of MM GHG-1 would require the purchase of carbon credits to offset the GHG emissions generated by the project that are in excess of the applicable threshold. However, as the credits would not change the actual GHG emissions levels of the project itself and the use of carbon credits as mitigation for GHG emissions has not been widely adopted in the Coachella Valley area for residential and resort community projects, the DEIR conservatively considered impacts associated with GHG emissions generated by the proposed project to be significant and unavoidable because the City cannot determine with certainty that the project's GHG emissions will be reduced to a less than significant level. Alternative 2 The Alternatives analysis in the DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would result in construction related GHG emission levels similar to those of the Preferred Alternative, in part because the same area would be disturbed, and the entire site would be developed. Based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB)'s Draft 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, traffic - related mobile sources contribute a majority of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative 2 was expected to generate approximately 13% more trips compared to the previously proposed project due to the increased number of single-family residential dwelling units and the lack of internal relationships to services and activities associated with the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 would have reduced criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the production of electricity and water, because it would not include a wave basin, and the need for electricity associated with that feature. Although emission increases or decreases are not linear in the CalEEMod model, Alternative 2 was determined in the DEIR to result in elevated GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips, as shown in Table 14. For the proposed project, PDFs resulted in a GHG emissions reduction of approximately 30%. Compared to the Preferred Project, Alternative 2 was expected to achieve a lower reduction in GHG emissions from PDF implementation because Alternative 2 could not be assumed to include commute trip reduction programs, telecommuting and alternative work schedules, and employer-sponsored shuttles with the same efficacy due to the substantially reduced number of workers (the other PDFs were assumed to be included in Alternative 2). Overall, therefore, GHG impacts associated with Alternative 2 were determined in the DEIR to be greater than the Preferred Alternative for operations and equivalent for construction activities, and would be significant and unavoidable. Revised Project Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 34 January 2024 54 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO The Revised Project would be subject to the more current and increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards for design, construction, and operation, which, combined with CARB Mobile Source Strategy aimed at reducing emissions of precursors to criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases (GHG), and toxic air contaminants from mobile sources, would allow this development scenario to be consistent with the current statewide Scoping Plan Update, resulting in less than significant impacts on plan conformance. Construction impacts associated with the Revised Project would be substantially the same as those analyzed for Alternative 2 in the EIR, because the same project site acreage would be disturbed and developed over a similar period of time with the same uses. Once amortized over the 30 -year project life, these construction emissions did not constitute a material portion of total project GHG emissions (approximately 414 MTCO2e per year or 2.5%). A Supplemental Air Quality and GHG Assessment was prepared for the Revised Project. As displayed in Table 14, the revised project would result in unmitigated GHG emissions totaling approximately 14,978.42 MTCO2e per year after accounting for amortized annual construction emissions assumed to be equivalent to the preferred alternative. Such emission totals would be lower than those calculated for the Preferred Alternative. However, when adjusted for the respective service population (population and employment) of 2,228, the unmitigated service population efficiency would be approximately 6.72 MTCO2e per SP per year, which is relatively higher than the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, by comparison, the Revised Project would result in relatively lower total GHG emissions, but slightly higher emissions when adjusted for the respective service population. Regardless, the Revised Project, like both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, would result in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts. Both the Preferred Alternative and the Revised Project would require the purchase of carbon credits to reduce the annual emission levels and respective service population efficiency levels below 3.65 MTCO2e per SP per year. Table 14 Comparison of GHG Emissions Unmitigated GHG Emissions in MTCO2el r Operational Operational Total Service Amortized Annual Event Emissions (Area, Project Population Construction Emissions Emissions Energy, Mobile, Emissions (Population and Waste, Water Usage) per year Employment) Preferred Alternative 414.62 546.89 16,310.41 17,270.47 2,672 Alternative 2 and 414.62 (Assumed Equivalent to Not 14,563.80 14,978.42 2,228 Revised Project* Preferred Alternative)Applicable *The operational emissions for Alternative 2 and the Revised Project are equivalent. Overall, the Revised Project will have the same GHG impacts as Alternative 2, and as discussed in the DEIR, these impacts will be greater than the Preferred Alternative with respect to operational Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 35 January 2024 55 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO emissions. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the DEIR on the basis of plan conformance and quantitative emissions. The same mitigation measure proposed in the DEIR for the Preferred Alternative would be implemented for the Revised Project, consisting of carbon credits in quantities that would help the project achieve a compliant population efficiency. Consistent with the DEIR findings for the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, because the use of carbon credits has not been broadly adopted in the Coachella Valley to mitigate GHG emissions impacts of residential and resort communities, and because even with the purchase of carbon credits will not lower the project's actual GHG emissions, this analysis conservatively considers the Revised Project to have a significant and unavoidable impact concerning GHG emissions, consistent with Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Preferred Alternative Construction: The Preferred Alternative would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or release hazardous materials into the environment during construction with the project's compliance with State law and standard measures (i.e., Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) which regulate safety procedures when using, handling, and storing hazardous materials during construction. Operation: Operation of the Preferred Alternative included a hotel/resort, commercial, residential, and recreational and open space uses on approximately 384.5 acres of vacant land. The nature of these uses was not expected to involve, as a primary activity, the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in quantities or in a manner that would pose a threat to the project and its surroundings or create a significant hazard through a foreseeable accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, operation of the Wave Basin, proposed in the Preferred Alternative, would involve the on-site storage of chemicals in quantities greater than or equal to fifty-five (55) gallons, and/or greater than or equal to five hundred (500) pounds for pools, which are considered hazardous materials. Therefore, under the administration of the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health (DEH), and in compliance with the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), the Wave basin would be required to secure a permit from the DEH and electronically submit a business plan in the Statewide Informational Management System. Compliance would result in less than significant impacts. The DEIR concluded that the Preferred Alternative is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school or included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Additionally, since the project site is surrounded by developed Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 36 January 2024 56 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO streets, and proposes multiple access points to the proposed land uses, the DEIR determined that implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not interfere with critical facilities, emergency transportation and circulation, or emergency preparedness coordination. A Traffic Control Plan would be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all construction activities. This plan will reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic. Project access points would be reviewed by the Fire Department, to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Finally, the DEIR found that the site is not located in an area affected by wildfires. Overall, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials were found to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. Alternative 2 Construction Construction of Alternative 2 was expected to involve the temporary management and use of oils, fuels and other potentially flammable substances in a manner similar to the Preferred Alternative. Thus, as a regulatory requirement, Alternative 2 would be required to comply with the requirements of law, and implement a SWPPP during construction to regulate safety procedures when using, handling, and storing hazardous materials during construction. Impacts would be comparable to the Preferred Alternative and less than significant. Operation Under Alternative 2, the property would develop low density residential units, a golf course, and commercial retail uses. The nature of the uses proposed under Alternative 2 was not expected to involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in quantities or a manner that would pose a threat to the project and its surroundings or create a significant hazard through a foreseeable accident condition. This is because residential and commercial uses typically use cleaning or maintenance materials (paints, cleaning supplies, etc.), stored in small quantities during operation. However, if the golf course component of Alternative 2 were to store hazardous materials in quantities greater than 55 gallons of liquid, 500 pounds of solid, and 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, the same requirement to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to the Riverside County Fire Department would apply. Construction and operation of the 384.5 -acre site, under Alternative 2 will increase vehicular and multi -modal transportation along the local major roadways in the City. Primary access to the site would be expected to occur along Madison Street, with access to the commercial portion of the site from both Madison Street and Avenue 58. These roadways would provide public and emergency access into and out of the project property. As with the Preferred Alternative, no alteration to existing emergency evacuation routes would be proposed. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 37 January 2024 57 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO As with the Preferred Alternative, a Traffic Control Plan would be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all construction activities. This plan will reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic. Project access points would be reviewed by the Fire Department, to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles. As determined in the DEIR, the site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or in an area impacted by wildfires, therefore, neither alternative would result in significant impacts to a school facility or wildfire. Alternative 2 was determined to also result in less than significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. Revised Project Cnnctn irtinn Construction activities associated with the Revised Project are the same as with Alternative 2, because they involve constructing the same homes, commercial square footage and golf course on the same site. Construction of the Revised Project is expected to involve the temporary management and use of oils, fuels, and other potentially flammable substances. Hazardous materials would be delivered, stored, and handled to manufacturer instructions and industry standards. Additionally, the contractor would be required to identify a controlled staging area within the project limits for storing materials and equipment, as required by a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The handling of potentially hazardous materials on-site would occur. Similar to Alternative 2, the Revised Project would implement safety procedures when using, handling, or storing hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant. Operation As the uses are the same under the Revised Project and Alternative 2, the operational effects relating to the use of hazardous materials would also be the same. As with Alternative 2, common hazardous materials utilized during the operation of residential, commercial, and golf uses can include everyday commercial products, such as pesticides, cleaning fluids, and household products. The golf course would result in the use and storage of larger amounts of pesticides and fertilizers as well as the maintenance of golf carts and other equipment used onsite than the Preferred Alternative, but these amounts would not be expected to be any greater than currently used and stored throughout the City's golf courses, nor are they expected to create any significant hazard because hazardous materials during operation of the Revised Project, as with Alternative 2, would be delivered, stored, and handled to manufacturer instructions and industry standards. Consistent with Alternative 2, there would be no uses onsite that would potentially create a risk to the public or environment or any activities that would inhibit any established hazard evacuation plan because the Revised Project Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 38 January 2024 58 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO would implement safety procedures when using, handling, and storing hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would have similar effects relating to hazards and hazardous materials, which would be less than significant. If the Revised Project were to store hazardous materials in substantial quantities, the operator would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to the Riverside County Fire Department. The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, therefore, no Alternative would impact a school facility. Construction and operation of the Revised Project would increase vehicular and multi -modal transportation along local roadways in the City, similar to Alternative 2. Primary access to the site would be expected to occur along Madison Street, with access to the commercial portion of the site from both Madison Street and Avenue 58. These roadways will provide public and emergency access into and out of the property. As with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, no alteration to existing emergency evacuation routes would be proposed. A Traffic Control Plan will be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all construction activities for all the alternatives and for the Revised Project. This plan will reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic. Project access points would be reviewed by the Fire Department, to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Finally, the property is not located in a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) according to CALFIRE's High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsible Areas Map. Therefore, impacts of exposing people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires are expected to be less than significant for the Revised Project, as they were for all Alternatives. The Revised Project (like Alternative 2) would result in similar, less than significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials. Hydrology and Water Quality Preferred Alternative The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to all hydrology and water quality thresholds, including any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, surface water quality, and ground water quality, groundwater supplies, sustainable groundwater management, erosion, siltation, flooding, urban runoff, and implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan as explained below. The DEIR found, during construction and life of the project, that the Preferred Alternative would be required to implement the various compliance plans under the Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), state, and local regulations to prevent violations or impacts Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 39 January 2024 59 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO to surface water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be implemented during the period of construction to comply with the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities. During the life of the project, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be met and demonstrated through a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP is also a requirement under the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Section 8.70.070. The Preferred Alternative relied on proposed on-site facilities to intercept and retain stormwater runoff on-site, sized according to the stormwater volume resulting from the controlling 100 -year storm event for the conditions of each project drainage area, as mandated by Section 13.21.120 (A) of the La Quinta Municipal Code and outlined in the La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06- 16. On the matter of groundwater supplies, the DEIR found that the Preferred Alternative would demand approximately 958.63 -acre feet per year (AFY) based on the analysis performed for the approved Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV). CVWD found that there was sufficient water supply to accommodate the land uses under the Preferred Alternative. Moreover, the Preferred Alternative would be subject to the locally adopted water -efficient landscape ordinance. On the matter of groundwater quality, the DEIR found that the Preferred Alternative would implement the required non-structural and structural pollution source control measures that work toward the protection of groundwater quality. Non-structural source control measures consist of site operations, activities, and/or programs described in the WQMP and implemented by the project operator to educate site managers, employees, and residents to prevent potential pollutants from being produced, coming into contact with the storm drain system, and impacting groundwater. Structural source control measures consist of facility design standards to prevent direct contact between potential pollutants and stormwater runoff. These measures would be privately maintained during the life of the project. The Preferred Alternative was found in the DIER to not result in any physical modifications to an existing CVWD recharge facility or result in any stormwater runoff condition capable of interfering with the facility's operation. On-site retention facilities would contribute to infiltration and groundwater recharge. On the matter of erosion, siltation, flooding, and urban runoff conditions, the Preferred Alternative was found to result in an increase in impervious land cover through the introduction of structures, hardscape and streets. However, the proposed storm drainage system with required on-site retention facilities and stabilized surfaces would control the volume and conveyance of runoff to prevent erosion and siltation. Flooding would be prevented through compliance with the City's engineering standards for land subdivision and development. Since the Preferred Alternative was required to Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 40 January 2024 AU CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO retain urban runoff on-site, it would not result in discharge affecting public storm drainage infrastructure. Moreover, all water quality pollution source control measures and stormwater management would be implemented consistent with the approved WQMP during the life of the project. Less than significant impacts were found for all hydrology and water quality thresholds. No mitigation was necessary. Alternative 2 The Alternatives analysis in the DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would result in site disturbance to an equivalent extent as the Preferred Alternative. Standard engineering design for Alternative 2 would be required to comply with City standards for the on-site retention of storm flows during the 100 -year storm, and would be expected to design retention basins, and similar facilities to those proposed for the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 would be subject to the same regulatory requirements, permit coverages, and engineering design approvals as the Preferred Alternative. These would include the most current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs associated with construction and post -construction stormwater management and surface water quality standards; a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to obtain coverage under the State's NPDES Construction General Permit; and the development, approval, and implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). No aspect of Alternative 2 would require deviation from these regulatory requirements and the associated stormwater controls. As discussed In the DIER Alternatives discussion under Utilities and Service Systems, Alternative 2 would require more water to irrigate the 18 -hole golf course than would be required for the Preferred Alternative; however, this increase in water demands was determined not to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, after following the regulatory program requirements designed specifically to prevent hydrologic, stormwater and surface water impairments, the impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would be similar to the Preferred Alternative and less than significant. Revised Project The disturbed area associated with the Revised Project would be the same as the 384.5 -acres disturbed by Alternative 2. Standard engineering design for the Revised Project would be required to comply with City standards for the on-site retention of storm flows during the 100 -year storm, and would require retention basins and similar facilities. The Revised Project would be subject to the same regulatory requirements, permit coverages, and engineering design approvals as Alternative 2. These would include the most current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs associated with construction and post -construction stormwater management and surface water quality standards; a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to obtain coverage under the State's NPDES Construction General Permit; and the development, approval, and implementation of Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 41 January 2024 61 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). As was the case under Alternative 2, the Revised Project would have no need for a deviation from regulatory requirements and associated stormwater controls. As discussed below under the Utilities and Service Systems heading, the Revised Project, like Alternative 2, would require similar water quantities to irrigate the 18 -hole golf course and other recreational amenities; however, this increase in water demand is not expected to interfere with groundwater recharge or substantially decrease groundwater supplies based on the findings in the WSA for the Revised Project, which determined that there are adequate water supplies available for the Revised Project and all other existing and planned future growth. Refer to Appendix D for a copy of the WSA for the Revised Project. Therefore, the Revised Project would not have a significant effect on water supplies or groundwater management efforts. With compliance with regulatory program requirements designed specifically to prevent hydrologic, stormwater and surface water impairments, the impacts resulting from the Revised Project would be the same as Alternative 2 and would be less than significant. Land Use and Planning Preferred Alternative The project site is currently located within the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan (SP 03-067) area. Under SP -03-067, the land use designations for the property includes Low Density Residential, Open Space Recreational, and General Commercial land uses, and the zoning designations for the project include Low Density Residential (RL), Golf Course (GC), and Neighborhood Commercial (CN). The Preferred Alternative proposed changes to the General Plan and Zoning Map consisting of General Commercial, Low Density Residential, Open Space— Recreation, and Tourist Commercial land use designations, and Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Parks and Recreation, and Tourist Commercial zoning designations. The DEIR analyzed the Preferred Alternative's consistency with the various chapters within the La Quinta General Plan, Zoning Code, and the surrounding area. Based on the consistency analysis provided in the DEIR, it was determined that the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the goals and polices within the General Plan, and that the Specific Plan proposed for the Preferred Alternative would result in changes in development standards, however, those changes would not be substantial. Therefore, impacts to land use and planning were determined to be less than significant. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would implement the land uses currently allowed under SP 03-067, would not require a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, and would not result in impacts to land use or planning since the site is currently designated for residential, commercial, and golf uses. Therefore, under Alternative 2, there would be no changes in existing land use conditions, or conflicts with any land Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 42 January 2024 RVA CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO use plan, policy, or regulation. Alternative 2 was determined to have reduced land use and planning impacts as compared to the Preferred Alternative. Revised Project Similar to Alternative 2, the Revised Project would implement the same residential, commercial and golf course land uses allowed under SP -03-067. Although the Revised Project includes minor adjustments to the General Plan land use and zoning maps to coincide with the revised configuration of the residential and golf course layout, these minor map amendments will not amend the land use and zoning designations for the property or introduce any new allowed land uses. Additionally, since the site is currently designated for the same residential, commercial, and golf uses and the Revised Project is not proposing any increases in the densities or intensities of development, it is considered consistent with the existing land use designations and would not result in conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, both the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would have reduced land use and planning related impacts because neither substantially amends the General Plan or zoning to allow Tourist Commercial uses, or modifies the Land Use and Zoning Maps to accommodate a substantially different land use pattern. Impacts associated with land use and planning for the Revised Project is considered to be substantially the same as with Alternative 2, and would be less than significant. Noise Preferred Alternative The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in noise during short-term construction activities, and long-term operational activities. Construction Based on the stages of construction, the noise impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative were expected to create temporarily high noise levels at the nearby receiver locations and onsite locations. However, the DEIR determined that construction noise would not exceed the 85 dBA threshold established by NIOSH (see Table 4.11-15 in DEIR). Therefore, with compliance with the City of La Quinta's established hours of construction set forth in Municipal Code, Section 6.08.050, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Although the impacts were determined to be less than significant, to lessen construction noise, the Preferred Alternative would be required to implement Mitigation Mesasures NOI-1 through N0I-4. These mitigation measures require: the project's compliance with the City's Municipal Code requirements regarding construction activities; construction contractors to equip all construction equipment (fixed or mobile) with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with industry standards; equipment staging areas to be located in areas that will create the greatest Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 43 January 2024 63 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receivers; and contractors to design delivery routes to minimize exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck -related noise. These mitigation measures are reproduced below: N0I-1: Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that project construction activities shall comply with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code requirements. N0I-2: During all project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with property operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. N0I-3: The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receivers nearest the project site during all project construction (i.e., to the center). N0I-4: The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck -related noise. The DEIR also analyzed the Preferred Alternative -related vibration during construction. The DEIR determined that vibrational impacts to the closest sensitive receiver to the project would be less than significant because the worst-case construction vibration levels would not exceed the threshold of significance, as shown in Table 4.11-27 of the DEIR. Additionally, onsite construction was not anticipated to significantly impact onsite residents and residential structures since building standards for seismic activity in the area exceed impacts created by vibration of construction activity. Therefore, impacts of construction -related vibration would be less than significant. Operation The analysis of the Preferred Alternative operation in the DEIR concluded that exterior noise levels perceived from the proposed low density residential homes, and the operation of the Wave Basin would experience exterior noise levels exceeding the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards. Thus, Mitigation Measure N0I-5 requires a minimum block wall of 6 feet in height to be developed along the northern and eastern project boundaries to provide an effective noise barrier, as follows: N0I-5: A six-foot perimeter wall will be developed along the northern and eastern property boundaries, adjacent to the proposed Low Density Residential Planning Area (PA II), in order to protect the proposed onsite residential uses from off-site traffic noise. The barriers shall provide a weight of at least four pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line -of -sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways. The barrier must Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 44 January 2024 64 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO present a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. The DEIR's analysis of the operation of the Preferred Alternative evaluated the operational noise impacts of the Wave Basin/wave machine activity, outdoor pool/spa activity, outdoor activity, and neighborhood commercial land use activity. These noise level impacts would likely vary throughout the day and will be limited to the daytime and evening hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., established in the DEIR as Mitigation Measure NOI-6, and compliant with the recreational operational hours established by the City of La Quinta: N0I-6: The operation of the Wave Basin and associated Wave machines shall be limited to the daytime and evening hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., compliant with the recreational operational hours allowed by the City of La Quinta. Overall, the DEIR determined that operational noise would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-5 and NOI-6. Alternative 2 The Alternatives analysis in the DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would result in an increase of construction- and operations -related noise onsite and in the surrounding area as compared to existing conditions. (-nn-,tri irtinn Alternative 2 would result in similar levels of development as the Preferred Alternative, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. However, similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would be required to implement Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-4 (outlined above) to lessen construction noise. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would result in periodic vibration from the use of heavy equipment during construction. However, these impacts are considered less than significant because vibrational impacts to the closest sensitive receiver to the project do not exceed the threshold of significance under the Preferred Alternative, as shown in Table 4.11-27 of the DEIR, and Alternative 2 will involve very similar construction equipment. Additionally, onsite construction is not anticipated to significantly impact onsite residents and residential structures since building standards for seismic activity in the area exceed impacts created by vibration of construction activity. Operation The DEIR concluded that operational noise impacts from Alternative 2 would be less than significant since it proposes uses similar to those in the surrounding area, which consist of residential and golf communities. Alternative 2 would not include the operation of a hotel, resort commercial, or Wave Basin. Because these uses would not be present onsite noise levels would be lower under Alternative 2. Additionally, the operation of Alternative 2 could include special events held on the golf course, Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 45 January 2024 65 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO but these events are not expected to cause significant noise impacts due to the limited nature of the events and the distance from any off-site sensitive receptors. Under Alternative 2, Mitigation Measure NOI-6 would not be required. Alternative 2 would result in a higher number of vehicle trips on City roadways than the Preferred Alternative, which would marginally increase the levels of noise on these roadways. However, given the capacity and the dispersed nature of the trips, noise levels from these trips would not increase ambient noise levels significantly, and impacts would not be significant. The DEIR concluded that Alternative 2 would result in reduced operational noise impacts as compared to the Preferred Alternative, and neither would result in significant and unavoidable operational noise impacts. Revised Project The Revised Project would result in the development and operation of the site with same uses and densities/intensities as Alternative 2, and therefore, would result in a comparable increase in the noise environment at the project site. Construction Construction of the Revised Project would increase the ambient noise level at and surrounding the site in substantially the same manner as under Alternative 2, since the entire site would be developed. As with Alternative 2, construction activities would be limited to daytime hours by Section 6.08.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Construction would not occur outside of these hours. The impacts of construction noise, as was determined in the DEIR, would be less than significant, however, the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-4 would further lessen such construction noise. The same mitigation measures as those proposed in the DEIR for the Preferred Alternative would be implemented for either Alternative 2 or the Revised Project. With implementation of these mitigation measures implementation of any Alternative would result in less than significant noise impacts during construction at the site. Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, development of the Revised Project would result in periodic vibration during the use of heavy equipment during construction. However, these impacts are considered to be less than significant because the worst-case construction -related vibration levels do not exceed the threshold of significance under the Preferred Alternative, as shown in Table 4.11-27 of the DEIR, and the Revised Project will involve very similar construction equipment. Additionally, onsite construction is not anticipated to significantly impact onsite residents and residential structures since building standards for seismic activity in the area exceed impacts created by vibration of construction activity. Operation Operational noise from the Revised Project would be the same as Alternative 2 and would not be considered significant since the proposed low-density residential, neighborhood commercial and golf Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 46 January 2024 M. CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO uses are similar to those in the surrounding area, which consist of residential and golf communities, and would not involve operation of the Wave Basin, hotel or other tourist/commercial uses. Similar to Alternative 2, the operation of the Revised Project could include special events on the golf course typical of private country clubs, but these events are not expected to cause significant noise impacts, because they would be restricted to allowable hours established by the City of La Quinta. Under the Revised Project, Mitigation Measure NOI-6 would not be required. Overall, the noise generated by the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would be substantially the same and would be less than significant. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would have reduced operational noise levels due to the removal of the Wave Basin and other resort uses. Although the Revised Project could generate slightly greater roadway noise due to the increase in overall daily trips, these noise levels would be less than significant, like Alternative 2, because of the existing capacity of the roadways and the dispersed nature of the trips. The Revised Project would result in reduced on-site noise levels as compared to the Preferred Project, and impacts would be less than significant. Public Services Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to fire, and police services with the payment of Development Impact Fees (DIF) in place at the time of construction, which is adequate to mitigate any significant impacts from new development. Additionally, the Preferred Alternative would be required to implement all applicable fire safety requirements, to include installation of fire hydrants, and sprinkler systems. The Preferred Alternative would also be required to pay developer fees to the Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) and a Park and Recreation Fee. The Preferred Alternative would not directly or indirectly induce substantial growth. As such, the Preferred Alternative would not result in any substantial adverse physical impacts to existing schools, parks, or other public facilities. Additionally, the Preferred Alternative would not generate an increase in demand that would warrant the expansion or construction of new public facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would introduce residents and uses that would increase demand on the City of La Quinta's public services. There would be an increased demand for police, fire, and emergency services, as well as schools, public facilities, and parks as a result of the development of the proposed 750 low density residential units. However, Alternative 2 would be required to comply with applicable laws and codes imposed by the City and Riverside County Fire Department, and would pay applicable Development Impact Fees. As a result, the DEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 47 January 2024 67 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Revised Project The Revised Project would introduce residents and uses that would increase demand on the City of La Quinta's public services consistent with Alternative 2. There would be an increased demand for police, fire, and emergency services, as well as schools, public facilities, and parks as a result of the development of up to 750 residential units. However, the Revised Project would be required to comply with applicable laws and codes imposed by the City and Riverside County Fire Department and pay applicable Development Impact Fees. These requirements and fees are designed to offset the demands of new development, apply to all new development, and would apply to the Revised Project just as they would to Alternative 2. As with Alternative 2, impacts will be less than significant. As compared with the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would result in similar impacts to public services because the Revised Project would develop the 384.5 -acre site and be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) to support fire and police infrastructure, a developer fee to CVUSD to support construction and reconstruction of schools, and a Parks and Recreation fee to support parks within La Quinta. These impacts, however, would be less than significant under either Alternative. Transportation Preferred Alternative The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in a total of 10 impacted intersections under build out (Phase 3) conditions. For the intersection of Madison Street at Avenue 58, addition of project traffic would require the installation of the traffic signal, and therefore, the required signal would be installed by the project as a condition of approval. The project would then be reimbursed all costs beyond the fair share calculation for this improvement. In addition, the Preferred Alternative would also be responsible for the installation of the main access traffic signal at Madison Street, improvements to adjacent roadways, and fair share contributions to offsite improvements pursuant to the transportation component of the City's DIF. Additionally, the project would participate in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program prior to issuance of building permits. For the remaining deficient study intersections, improvements were determined to be needed under both with or without project conditions. The Preferred Alternative was required to contribute to these CIP-programmed improvements on a fair share basis, as shown in Table 1.13-29 of the DEIR, through payment of the City's Development Impact Fees (DIF). With the implementation of the Mitigation Measures described in the DEIR, and the imposition of conditions of approval, impacts associated with compliance with the General Plan transportation policies would be reduced to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures are: TRA -1 The project proponent shall contribute DIF as required by the City of La Quinta. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 48 January 2024 .: CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO TRA -2 The project proponent shall contribute TUMF traffic impact mitigation fees prior to the issuance of Building Permits. TRA -3 The project proponent shall ensure that streetscape improvement plans for the project frontage on Avenue 58, Madison Street and Avenue 60, are submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the initiation of landscape or roadway improvements. TRA -4 The project proponent shall ensure that clear unobstructed sight distances are provided at all site access points and internal intersections. Sight distances shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of landscape and street improvement plans. TRA -5 The project proponent shall ensure that final layout and site access design are subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to final project approval. TRA -6 The project proponent shall ensure that emergency police, fire and paramedic vehicle access are provided for the project prior to final project approval. TRA -7 The project proponent shall ensure that traffic signing and striping plans shall be developed in conjunction with street improvement plans and submitted to the City of La Quinta for review and approval during the project approval process. TRA -8 The project proponent shall ensure that Construction Traffic Control Plans are reviewed and approved by the City prior to project construction. These plans are to be implemented during construction activities. Construction includes onsite and offsite improvements. TRA -9 If Special Events are to take place prior to the completion of Phase 3 construction, Phase 3 typical operations traffic improvements will be completed or the applicant shall provide a focused traffic analysis with the Temporary Use Permit that identifies any improvements that are not necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at study intersections. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied. TRA -10 If Special Events are to take place prior to the construction of Phase 3, a special event traffic and parking plan will be submitted with each Temporary Use Permit to ensure that special events will not cause any significant traffic or parking impacts. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied. TRA-11Traffic Management Plans will be submitted to the City and the Police Department for review and approval prior to special events. Timing for installation of traffic management measures will be scaled to the size and duration of the event. In general, signage for large events should be in place five days prior and two days following special events. The City and Police Department may impose additional measures if determined to be necessary. Individual management plans for specific special events shall be submitted at least 30 days prior to the start of the event. The special event Traffic Management Plans shall include the measures identified in Mitigation Measures TRA -12 through TRA -14 below. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 49 January 2024 .• CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO TRA -12 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the project proponent shall include the use of Portable changeable message signs (CMS) or moveable mechanical electronic message boards. CMS will be located at critical locations identified by the La Quinta Police Department (LQPD) and in place 5 days ahead of the event and 2 days after. TRA -13 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan the project proponent shall include the use of law enforcement personnel and/or special event flaggers to direct traffic in locations reviewed and approved by the City and Police Department. TRA -14 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan the project proponent shall include the use of public service announcements (PSA) to provide information to event guests and surrounding neighborhoods prior to the event. Examples include online event information, brochures and changeable message signs that include details such as suggested routes, drop- off and parking facility locations. TRA -15 The project proponent shall ensure that the proposed Coral Mountain Interpretive Center trail designated by the Desert Recreation District Master Plan and associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center is incorporated into project plans. Accommodations for this trail shall be located along the approximate toe of Coral Mountain, within the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property. Likewise, build out of the Preferred Alternative, in conjunction with General Plan (2040) cumulative build out conditions would result in potential impacts, without improvements. However, with the implementation of project and CIP-programmed improvements, cumulative transportation impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Project VMT was determined in the DEIR to be potentially significant, but would be reduced by PDFs, which are enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, and would be anticipated to collectively reduce project home-based VMT by approximately 6% (from 11.64 VMT/resident to 10.94 VMT/resident). With this reduction, the home-based VMT was determined to be less than the City's VMT residential threshold of 12.98 VMT/resident. In addition, implementation of the project was anticipated to result in a reduction in Citywide VMT for service population and would not increase VMT at the regional level. Accordingly, the DEIR found that the Preferred Alternative's VMT impacts were less than significant. To ensure special events at the Wave Basin would not result in any significant hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses, a queuing analysis was performed for the Preferred Alternative to assess the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the project entries. The results are found in Table 4.13-28b of the DEIR. Turn bays on surrounding streets were anticipated to accommodate the estimated 95th Percentile queue length during Weekend Special Events. Accordingly, impacts for the Preferred Alternative were determined to be less than significant, Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 50 January 2024 70 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO following implementation of mitigation measures TRA -5 through TRA -7, as well as the review and approval process at the City of La Quinta. In addition, prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department would review the project site plan, and individual sub -area plans as they are brought forward, to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access, consistent with Fire Department and Police Department standards. The Preferred Alternative was determined to have less than significant impacts concerning emergency access. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would have the same short-term construction -related traffic impacts as the Preferred Alternative because the same project site would be developed over a comparable period of time. As with the Preferred Alternative, such impacts would be less than significant because a traffic control plan would be required throughout all construction activities. Alternative 2 was determined in the DEIR to result in an approximately 13% increase in total daily vehicle trips as compared with the Preferred Alternatives, as well as increases in AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 7-2 of the DEIR. As a result, the DEIR concluded that Alternative 2 could potentially result in increased impacts at intersections and necessitate additional improvements at area intersections to mitigate these impacts. These impacts are addressed in TRA -1 and TRA -2, which call for the payment of DIF and TUMF to fund the project's fair share of the necessary area roadway improvements. As is the case with the Preferred Alternative, however, mitigation through the payment of DIF fees and fair share contributions to planned improvements would be expected to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures TRA -9 through TRA -14 do not apply to Alternative 2 as they specifically addressed the special events of the Preferred Alternative. TRA -15 ensure that the proposed Coral Mountain Interpretive Center trail designated by the Desert Recreation District Master Plan (DRDMP) and associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center is incorporated into project plans. This mitigates potential impacts to area trails. Both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 would be required to implement this mitigation. Impacts to area trail plans and the DRDMP will be less than significant. Alternative 2 was also anticipated to have a higher daily VMT and per capita VMT because it would generate more daily trips and lacked the Preferred Alternative's complementary mix of uses on-site and enhanced connectivity between those uses. Alternative 2 was expected to generate 13% more trips compared to the Preferred Alternative. This would result in an overall higher VMT for Alternative 2. Impacts associated with VMT were anticipated to be significant and unavoidable. Overall, Alternative 2 would generate more daily trips on area roadways, resulting in increased VMT impacts and potentially greater LOS impacts, compared to the proposed project. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 51 January 2024 71 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO TRA -3 through TRA -7 provide mitigation that addresses appropriate project roadway, adjacent roadway, and access point design, including approved unobstructed sight distances, adequate emergency access, and approved signing and striping plans. These Mitigation Measures would be applied to both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. Following implementation, impacts will be less than significant. Revised Project The Revised Project and Alternative 2 would have substantially the same construction and operational impacts regarding transportation because they both involve construction of the same mix of uses on the same project site at the same density and intensity of development. Short-term construction vehicle trip impacts would result from the development of the residential homes, neighborhood commercial center and golf course. However, these impacts would be limited to permitted construction activity hours per the La Quinta Municipal Code and a Traffic Control Plan would be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all construction activities. Compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that the Revised Project would not have any significant transportation impacts during construction, similar to both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2. As was proposed for the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, primary access to the site will occur at Madison Street, with secondary access from Avenues 58 and 60. These roadways will provide adequate public and emergency access into and out of the project for residents, golf club members, as well as employees, vendors, service providers and public safety equipment and personnel. The Revised Project would have the same operational impacts as Alternative 2 because it would develop the same uses on the same property with the same density and intensity of development. A Supplemental LOS Assessment, which included an update to the trip generation and distribution anticipated for the Revised Project has been completed (see Appendix B). This analysis is based on recent updates to the ITE trip generation tables which occurred with publication of the 111h Edition of the ITE Manual in 2021 (the 101h Edition of the Manual was in effect at the time the DEIR was prepared). As a result of this update, an increase in the total peak hour and daily trips shown in the DEIR for Alternative 2 is forecast, as shown in Table 15 below. It is important to note that should Alternative 2 be studied today, it would show the same increase of 839 trips as the Revised Project because the project components are the same. Notably, Table 15 shows that the increase from the ITE update occurs primarily in the daily trip totals and has little effect on peak hour totals. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 52 January 2024 72 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 15 Revised Project and Alternative 2 Trip Generation Comparison Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In I Out I Total In I Out Total Trip Generation Comparison Trip Generation Comparison Revised Project Revised Project -750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 18 Hole Golf Course (ITE 11`h Edition) 189 402 591 505 329 834 8,762 Alternative 2 402 591 505 -750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 18 Hole Golf Course (ITE 10`h Edition) 175 414 589 505 324 829 7,923 Alternative 2 Delta (Revised Project — Alt 2) 14 -12 2 0 5 5 839 Source: ITE Trip Generation 101 Edition and ITE Trip Generation 111" Edition. Table 16 illustrates that the Revised Project would have a higher trip generation than the Preferred Alternative. The increase would amount to 1,768 ADT. Comparatively, if the Preferred Alternative was analyzed today, the numbers would also increase due to revisions in ITE modelling standards. Table 16 Revised Project and Coral Mountain Trip Generation Comparison Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Trip Generation Comparison Revised Project -750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 18 Hole Golf Course (ITE 11`h Edition) 189 402 591 505 329 834 8,762 Preferred Alternative -750 DU Res, 60 TSF Retail, 150 RM Hotel, 12 AC Wave Basin, 15 TSF Village, 16 TSF Farm (ITE 10`h Edition) 143 304 447 383 255 638 6,994 Delta (Revised Project — Coral Mountain Resort) 46 98 144 122 74 196 1,768 Source: ITE Trip Generation 101 Edition and ITE Trip Generation 111 Edition Operation of the Revised Project is shown to have an approximately 11 percent increase in total daily trips as compared to Alternative 2, but this increase is solely due to the revisions to the ITE modelling standards that were refined between 2020 (10th Edition) and 2023 (11th Edition). However, the increase in peak hour totals, which is what drives level of service and intersection/roadway impacts increase by less than 1%. The Supplemental LOS Assessment also analyzed whether the Revised Project would have any new or substantially more severe effects on area roadways and intersections. Ten existing intersections will fall below acceptable LOS levels with implementation of the Revised Project. These are the same existing intersections that would fall below acceptable LOS levels under the Preferred Alternative. The same improvements to these intersections (as well as a traffic signal at the main project entrance and Madison Street) are required to maintain acceptable levels of service for both the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. Impacts associated with study roadway segments were slightly higher for the Revised Project when compared with the Preferred Alternative, however the proposed roadway improvements were Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 53 January 2024 73 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO identical, including additional access and turning lanes. With roadway improvements, impacts will be less than significant. Table 17 compares the calculated delay and LOS for the Revised Project with the Preferred Alternative. Impacts associated with the Revised Project would increase slightly at most intersections with some intersections showing reductions in impacts, including the #19 Project Main Access/Madison Street AM Peak Hour. With the same intersection improvements identified in the DEIR, the Revised Project would not result in a significant impact to any intersections. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 54 January 2024 74 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 17 Intersection Comparison of Preferred Alternative and Revised Proiect (2026) The applicable Mitigation Measures for both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project are Mitigation Measures TRA -1 through TRA -8 and TRA -15. Following implementation of these Mitigation Measures, regulatory requirements, and conditions of approval, impacts are anticipated to be less than Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 55 January 2024 75 Preferred Alternative Revised Project # Intersection Traffic Contro 13 Delay (Secs)' AM PM Level of Service' AM PM Delay (Secs)' AM PM Level of Service' AM PM 1 Madison St/Avenue 58 -Without Improvements AWS 41.6 37.8 E E 19.9 >80 C F -With Improvements is 29.9 30.9 C C 27.0 321 C C 2 Madison St/Airport Blvd. TS 10.5 10.8 B B 9.5 10.7 A B 3 Madison St./ Avenue 54 -Without Improvements AWS 45.9 39.3 E E >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 42.6 41.4 D D 423 52.8 D D 4 Madison St./ Avenue 52 TS 32.3 32.0 C C 32A 33A C C 5 Madison St./ Avenue 50 TS 32.5 32.5 C C 323 33.7 C C 6 Jefferson St./ Avenue 54 -Without Improvements AWS >80 >80 F F 57.6 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 21.9 21.8 C C 22.6 22.7 C C 7 Jefferson St./ Avenue 52 -Without Improvements RDB >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements RDB 13.5 13.4 B B 17-5 34.8 C D 8 Jefferson St./ Pomelo TS 29.0 28.9 C C 19.5 35.9 B D 9 Jefferson St./ Avenue 50 -Without Improvements TS 48.1 48.1 D D 532 603 D E -With Improvements TS 47.3 47.3 D D 52.0 51.7 D D 10 Madison St./ Avenue 60 AWS 12.7 13.9 B B 10-5 15A B C 11 Monroe St./Avenue 60 -Without Improvements AWS 47.0 45.2 E E 32.7 >80 D F -With Improvements TS 35.3 35.4 D D 34.8 38.3 C D 12 Monroe St./Avenue 58 -Without Improvements AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 30.2 30.4 C C 26.6 411 C D 13 Monroe St./Airport Blvd -Without Improvements AWS 66.3 66.4 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 22.9 22.8 C C 24.5 263 C C 14 Monroe St./ Avenue 54 -Without Improvements AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 32.6 32.6 C C 352 38.0 D D 15 Monroe St./ Avenue 52 -Without Improvements AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 34.3 34.3 C C 342 453 C D 16 Monroe St./ 501h Avenue TS 20.7 20.7 C C 17.9 26.0 B C 17 Jackson St./ 58th Avenue AWS 14.6 14.6 B B 101 23A B C 18 S. Access/ Avenue 60 CSS 8.9 8.9 A A 9.0 91 A A 19 Madison St/Main Access CSS 30.9 32.2 D D 132 123 B B 20 Project Access 1/Ave. 58 CSS 12.6 12.1 B B 101 111 B B 21 Project Access 2/Ave. 58 CSS 9.9 10.3 A B 9 A 10.0 A A 22 Madison St /Project Access 3 CSS 11.0 11.1 B B 9.7 11.8 A B 23 Madison St/Golf Course S. Access 103 113 B B The applicable Mitigation Measures for both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project are Mitigation Measures TRA -1 through TRA -8 and TRA -15. Following implementation of these Mitigation Measures, regulatory requirements, and conditions of approval, impacts are anticipated to be less than Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 55 January 2024 75 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO significant. The following improvements are necessary with the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. Full Improvements: • Madison Street at Project Main Access entrance Traffic Signals: • Madison Street at Avenue 58 • Madison Street at Project Main Access • Madison Street at Avenue 54 • Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 • Monroe Street at Avenue 60 • Monroe Street at Avenue 58 • Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard • Monroe Street at Avenue 54 • Monroe Street at Avenue 52 Lane Improvements: • Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 • Project South Access at Avenue 60 • Project Access 1 at Avenue 58 • Project Access 2 at Avenue 58 • Madison Street at Project Access 3 Roundabout: • Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 — (reconstruction of the current roundabout design) As described in the DEIR, these improvements would be required under all Alternatives, and the appropriate fair share contribution towards these improvements would be calculated based on trip generation impacts to study intersections as illustrated in Table 18. Finally, the Supplemental LOS Assessment identifies the Revised Project's fair share contribution to the need for future intersection improvements throughout the project study area, which are very similar to the Preferred Alternative, with slight increases at most intersections due to the slightly increased peak hour trip generation rate of the Revised Project. The Revised Project will be required to provide fair share mitigation payments toward planned improvements at two additional intersections (#16 and #17). The Revised Project would also construct an additional access point at #23 Madison Street and Golf Course South Access. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 56 January 2024 76 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 18 Project Fair Share Contributions Comparison (2026) Intersection # Intersection Preferred Alternative Revised Project 1 Madison Street/Avenue 58 23% 29% 3 Madison Street/Avenue 54 9% 11% 6 Jefferson Street/Avenue 54 4% 5% 7 Jefferson Street/Avenue 52 2% 3% 9 Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 2% 3% 11 Monroe Street/Avenue 60 6% 8% 12 Monroe Street/Avenue 58 11% 14% 13 Monroe Street/Airport Blvd 6% 8% 14 Monroe Street/Avenue 54 5% 6% 15 Monroe Street/Avenue 52 4% 5% 16 Monroe Street/50th Avenue - 4% 17 Jackson Street/581h Avenue - 12% Based on the foregoing comparison, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe effects on intersections and roadways than the Preferred Alternative project, and such impacts associated with compliance with General Plan transportation policies, would be less than significant following the implementation of Mitigation Measures, regulatory requirements and conditions of approval. The Revised Project is anticipated to have slightly higher daily VMT and per capita VMT than Alternative 2 analyzed in the DEIR, due solely to the increased trip generation rates adopted by ITE with its most recent update. It is noted that if Alternative 2 were analyzed today the trip generation data would be identical to the Revised Project because the model inputs (number of homes, square footage of commercial, etc.) would be identical. A Supplemental VMT Assessment was prepared for the Revised Project, which is attached as Appendix C. As compared with the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would have slightly higher daily and per capita VMT because the mix of uses in the Revised Project (and Alternative 2) generate more daily trips. As shown in Table 19, residential home-based VMT would be 13.14 per resident which very slightly exceeds the Citywide home-based VMT of 12.98 per resident which is shown in Table 21. Also as shown in Table 19, the Preferred Alternative would result in a home-based VMT of 11.64, which is slightly below the Citywide home- based VMT, with implementation of on-site Project Design Features that would increase trip capture in the Preferred Alternative. Table 19 Preferred Alternative Baseline and Cumulative Project Residential Home -Based VMT Category Project 2012 Project 2040 Project 2020 (interpolated) Residents 1,698 1,698 1,698 VMT 19,437 20,642 19,773 VMT / Resident 11.45 12.14 11.64 Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 57 January 2024 77 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 20 Revised Project Baseline and Cumulative Project Residential Home -Based VMT Category Project 2012 Project 2040 Project 2020 (interpolated) Residents 1,875 1,875 1,875 VMT 23,993 26,232 24,632 VMT / Resident 12.80 13.99 13.14 Table 21 Base Year Citywide Home -Based VMT Category City of La Quinta VMT 544,993 Population 42,000 VMT / Resident 12.98 The non-residential VMT also increases slightly with the Revised Project over the previously proposed project. As shown in Table 22, the sub -regional link -level VMT per service population with the Revised Project would be 21.57, as compared to 21.53 VMT per service population attributed to the Preferred Alternative. Table 22 Preferred Alternative and Revised Project Base Year Sub -Regional Link -Level VMT Category Without Project Employment Preferred Alternative With Project Employment Revised Project With Project Employment VMT Interacting with CVAG Area 15,173,739 15,166,580 15,179,349 CVAG Area Population 510,550 510,550 510,550 CVAG Area Employment 193,090 193,764 193,203 VMT /Service Population 21.56 21.53 21.57 This minor increase in VMT for the Revised Project is consistent with the analysis of Alternative 2 in the EIR, which concluded that Alternative 2 would have somewhat greater VMT impacts than the Preferred Alternative due to an increase in trip generation rates and a decrease in the rate of internal capture. As with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project will include design elements that reduce VMT to the maximum extent feasible. Project design will establish residential neighborhoods that are linked through multi -use trails. Community amenities will include activity hubs for the project with open space and trail connections providing easy access to the amenities. The perimeter roadway frontages will provide access for pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians through provision of a multi -use trail as a component of the public street system. The trail network along the primary entry road will connect to the community trail system. The Revised Project shall ensure that the future trail for the Coral Mountain Interpretive Center is incorporated into project plans. Accommodations for this trail shall be located along the approximate Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 58 January 2024 78 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO toe of Coral Mountain, within the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property. In addition, the proposed 60,000 SF of commercial uses at the corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street would continue to result in a reduction in VMT by providing resident -serving commercial amenities in the immediate vicinity of project residents and the existing adjacent communities. VMT impacts associated with the Revised Project would however remain significant and unavoidable, as they would under Alternative 2. A queuing analysis was performed for both the Preferred Alternative and for the Revised Project. Less than significant impacts were anticipated relative to hazards due to geometric design feature or incompatible uses for both Projects. Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project is not anticipated to increase hazards due to geometric design feature or incompatible uses, following implementation of the mitigation measures, as well as the review and approval process at the City of La Quinta. Impacts were anticipated be less than significant. Prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department would review the project site plan, and individual sub -area plans as they are brought forward, to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access, consistent with Fire Department and Police Department standards. Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project is not anticipated to result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant relative to inadequate emergency access. Cumulative Impacts Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would be responsible for the Traffic Signal at #19 Madison Street and the Main access and improvements to adjacent roadways in the cumulative 2040 condition. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would be responsible for fair share contributions to offsite improvements pursuant to the transportation component of the City's DIF. Additionally, the project will participate in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program prior to issuance of building permits. Table 23 illustrates the 2040 fair share contribution for 17 area roadway improvements for both the Preferred Alternative and the Revised Project for the 2040 condition. These fair share percentages represent impacts based on 2040 project traffic volumes (GP buildout). The Revised Project will be responsible for slightly higher Fair Share Contributions for a majority of intersections. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 59 January 2024 79 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 23 Project 2040 Fair Share Contributions Intersection # Intersection Preferred Alternative Revised Project 1 Madison Street/Avenue 58 10% 14% 3 Madison Street/Avenue 54 4% 5% 4 Madison Street/Avenue 52 2% 3% 5 Madison Street/Avenue 50 1% 2% 6 Jefferson Street/Avenue 54 2% 3% 7 Jefferson Street/Avenue 52 2% 2% 9 Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 2% 2% 10 Madison Street/Avenue 60 4% 6% 11 Monroe Street/Avenue 60 2% 4% 12 Monroe Street/Avenue 58 4% 6% 13 Monroe Street/Airport Blvd 2% 3% 14 Monroe Street/Avenue 54 2% 3% 15 Monroe Street/Avenue 52 2% 3% 16 Monroe Street/50th Avenue 1% 2% 17 Jackson Street/58th Avenue 2% 3% Build out of both the Preferred Alternative and the Revised Project, in conjunction with General Plan (2040) build out conditions would result in potential impacts, without improvements. However, with the implementation of the Revised Project and CIP-programmed improvements, cumulative transportation impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels except for impacts associated with VMTs which would be significant and unavoidable. This is consistent with the DEIR determination that Alternative 2 would have less than significant LOS -related impacts with implementation of mitigation, but would have a significant and unavoidable VMT impact. As indicated in the DEIR for Alternative 2, overall VMT impacts of the Revised Project are anticipated to be significant and unavoidable because even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the home-based VMT per capita and the VMT per service population slightly exceed the City's thresholds of significance. However, this impact is the same under both the Revised Project and Alternative 2, and therefore, the Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the DEIR. Tribal Cultural Resources Preferred Alternative During tribal consultation, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) indicated that the area is especially important, and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) requested that their importance be protected, and that the Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex be avoided and preserved, as required by Mitigation Measure TCR -5. Mitigation Measure TCR -6 requires surface collection and Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 60 January 2024 :1, CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO subsurface excavation to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project. The ACBCI determined that, based on their resource inventories, and the breadth and significance of resources identified in and surrounding the project, the area is considered significant to the Tribe, and further surface investigation, testing, and excavation, if necessary, is needed to assure that impacts to Tribal resources in the area are not significant. In order to ensure that the impact is reduced to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures were included in the DEIR: TCR -1: Before ground disturbing activities begin, the applicant shall contact the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office to arrange cultural monitoring. The project requires 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 in the vicinity of the deposits, and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines), within 24 hours, 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. TCR -2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and provided to the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and activities. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. TCR -3: Before ground disturbing activities, the project's archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI's Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action to approve the plan is taken within 30 days from submission for approval. If the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office rejects two Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site. TCR -4: Before ground disturbing activities, the project's archaeologist shall prepare a Rock Art Management Plan, based on recommendations made in the report by McCarthy and Mouriquand, and shall submit the plan to the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Rock Art Management Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI's Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action is taken to approve the plan within 30 days of submission for Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 61 January 2024 81 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO approval. If the ACBCI Historic Preservation Office rejects two Rock Art Management Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Rock Art Management Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site. TCR -5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contain the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project construction through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas; the Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be recorded on the property, and proof of recordation shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III. Nominations of these sites to the National Register of Historic Places shall be filed with the appropriate federal agency prior to the issuance of the first grading permit; and the sites shall be subject to the provisions of the Rock Art Management Plan. TCR -6: For the portion of Site 33-001715 outside the preservation area established in TCR -5, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI. A report of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI's satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. TCR -7: Prior to ground disturbance in Planning Area III, a qualified archaeologist shall complete surface collection, testing and excavation if necessary, for sites 33-1716, 33-1717, 33-8386, 33-9001, 33-9003, 33-28907, 33-28908, 33-28909, 33-28910, 33-28911, 33-28912. A report of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI's satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. TCR -8: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to preserve the information on the adobe building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined bythe project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project's Homeowners Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 62 January 2024 RVA CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre -1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun -colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al.1998:54). TCR -9: The applicant shall coordinate with ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office to ensure there are a sufficient number of Native American monitors for the number of earth -moving machinery for each phase of development. The applicant shall provide the City with fully executed monitoring agreements prior to each phase of ground disturbing activity. TCR -10: Should human remains be inadvertently discovered during ground disturbance, the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 shall be followed. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has examined the remains. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 -hours. TCR -11: Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall sign a curation agreement with the ACBCI THPO. A fully executed copy of the agreement shall be provided to the City. TCR -12: Prior to any ground disturbance, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all contractors with the staff at the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). Mitigation Measure TCR -7 requires a qualified archaeologist to complete surface collection, testing and excavation, if necessary, for the sites. A report of findings including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI's satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. Since the project is located within the ACBCI's Tribal Traditional Use Area and the Tribe's records indicate that Tribal cultural resources are located within the project area, cultural monitoring is required as Mitigation Measure TCR -1. In addition, TCR -2 and TCR -9 require monitoring on the site for all earth moving activities by both archaeological and Tribal monitors. Mitigation Measures TCR -3 and TCR -4 Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 63 January 2024 83 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO require the preparation of an Archeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan and a Rock Art Management Plan prior to ground disturbing activities. TCR -5 through TCR -8 mitigates potential disturbance of the sites by implementing the preservation and testing of the site areas. Mitigation Measure TCR -10 implements State law relating to the protection of human remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. To further protect resources that may be uncovered during project development, Mitigation Measure TCR -11 and TCR -12 will require a curation agreement with the ACBCI and construction worker sensitivity training during all aspects and phases of project construction. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the Preferred Alternative was determined to have less than significant impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was determined to have similar impacts to tribal cultural resources as the Preferred Alternative, since both alternatives would disturb the 384.5 -acre site and be required to implement the same Mitigation Measures TCR -1 through TCR -12 to reduce impacts to less than significant levels by avoiding sensitive areas, testing surface and subsurface areas, monitoring during construction, preparing an Archeological Treatment, Deposition, and Monitoring Plan and Rock Art Management Plan, and coordinating with the ACBCI. Revised Project The Revised Project would result in substantially the same impacts to tribal cultural resources as Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative because they involve development of the same project site. The Revised Project would be required to implement the same mitigation measures identified in the DEIR, which would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the Revised Project's impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources would be the same as for Alternative 2, and would be less than significant. Utilities and Service Systems Preferred Alternative The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded off-site wastewater treatment, storm water drainage systems, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. However, the project would be required to construct an offsite pipeline in Avenue 60, in accordance with an existing agreement with Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The infrastructure and design components for the pipeline will be consistent with CVWD requirements and the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and would occur along an existing right-of-way. Therefore, development of the pipeline would not result in significant impacts. In addition, the Preferred Alternative included installation of a new connection and upgrades to the existing IID substation facility at 81600 Avenue 58, which IID identified as necessary to provide Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 64 January 2024 84 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO adequate electricity to the site. Impacts relating to these expansions to utility and service systems were determined in the DEIR to be less than significant. Development of the project would result in an overall increase in water demand from the project site during operation. The project -specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA) analyzed the Preferred Alternative's water consumption and whether supply would be available to the Preferred Alternative. Based upon the analysis in the WSA, the estimated total domestic water demand for indoor and outdoor use is approximately 958.63 acre-feet per year (AFY), or 2.49 acre-feet per acre. This quantity is approximately 0.49 -percent of the total project water to be supplied by the CVWD in 2040 (194,300 AFY). With almost 30 million AF of combined storage supplemented by groundwater management planning adopted in the 2015 UWMP and 2010 CVWMP Update, the aquifer was determined to have sufficient available water to supply the project and other present and anticipated needs for normal year, as well as one or more multiple dry years, over the next 20 years (see page 4.15-31 of the DEIR). This was based on the volume of water available in the aquifer, CVWD's Colorado River contract supply, SWP Table A amounts, water rights and water supply contracts, and CVWD's commitment to eliminate overdraft and reduce per capita water use in CVWD's service area. CVWD has committed sufficient resources to further implement the primary elements of the 2010 CVWMP Update and 2015 UWMP, which includes the full utilization of imported water supplies, purchase of additional water supplies, water conservation, and source substitution. Impacts to water supply were concluded to be less than significant. The Preferred Alternative was proposing a new 15 -inch and 12 -inch sewer main that would collect flow from the development and convey it to an existing 15 -inch gravity sewer main at Avenue 58 and 12 -inch sewer main off of Madison Street. Flows would then be delivered to CVWD's Wastewater Reclamation Plant No.4 (WRP-4). WRP-4 has a plant capacity of 9.9 MGD and is located in Thermal. The annual average flow to this facility is approximately 4.75 MGD. The Preferred Alternative was estimated to generate wastewater at 156,839 GPD or 0.157 MDG, which is one percent of the plant's capacity, and which will increase flows by 3.3% over existing volumes. The Preferred Alternative would not cause existing volumes or planned capacity to be exceeded, and was determined to be consistent with the requirements set forth in CVWD's existing agreement to provide sanitary sewer service to the project. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. The Preferred Alternative would consume electricity provided by IID. IID has indicated that additional offsite improvements will be required to meet the Preferred Alternative's power demand. The Preferred Alternative would be required to install twelve, 6 -inch conduits along Avenue 58 to bring additional power to the site and install a transformer bank at IID's existing substation yard located at Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. The offsite improvements for the conduit system will take place in the existing right of way, on both sides of Avenue 58, between Andalusia and PGA West, and on Madison Street, west of Andalusia, and will be installed underground during Phase I of the development. The Preferred Alternative would account for approximately 0.19 percent of IID's total estimated demand Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 65 January 2024 85 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO in 2031. The DEIR determined that with the project's connection to the IID substation, it is anticipated that IID's existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the Preferred Alternative's demand. Underground natural gas lines exist adjacent to the project site along Avenue 58 and Madison Street, north and east of the project, respectively. Construction impacts associated with the installation of natural gas connections are expected to be confined to trenching in order to extend them from Madison Street into the Preferred Alternative site. As stated above, the Preferred Alternative is anticipated to consume approximately 21,855,400 kBTU/year, which is approximately 1.47 percent of the City's natural gas consumption at build -out of the City, and approximately 0.0025 percent of the 2030 forecasted consumption in SoCalGas's planning area. The Preferred Alternative would be designed to comply with Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) regarding energy consumption. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded natural gas facilities. The Preferred Alternative would generate 3,674.5 cubic yards of solid waste during the operation of the residential and commercial land uses. The waste generated by the Preferred Alternative would be approximately 0.023 percent of the remaining capacity at Badlands Disposal site, 0.0025 percent of EI Sobrante Landfill's remaining capacity, and 0.019 percent of the remaining capacity of the Lamb Canyon Disposal site, per the DEIR (page 4.15-33). In addition, all future development would be required to comply with mandatory commercial and residential recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. The Preferred Alternative would comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines; and the Preferred Alternative would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to serve the project. Therefore, impacts relative to solid waste were determined to be less than significant. The Preferred Alternative would comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines. All development is required to comply with the mandatory commercial and residential recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. The California Green Building Standards Code (Cal Green) applies to all cities in California, and mandates that all new building construction develop a waste management plan that includes diversion of at least 65% of construction and demolition material from landfills, through recycling and/or reuse. Prior to applying for a permit, the contractor or property owner must submit a Construction & Demolition Debris Management Plan to the City's Environmental Coordinator. There were no impacts relative to applicable solid waste regulations because the project is required to, and would, comply with all such regulations. Alternative 2 The Alternatives analysis in the DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would result in an increased demand for water to irrigate the golf course but would result in decreased demand for electricity and natural gas. Wastewater collection and treatment, solid waste, and telecommunication services would be similar under Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 66 January 2024 :. CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO As analyzed in the DEIR, Alternative 2 would result in 1,058.54 AFY of water consumption. This is an increase of 99.91 AFY compared to the Preferred Alternative, which would consume 958.63 AFY. The outdoor water consumption for Alternative 2 is 921.14 AFY, as compared to 801.47 AFY for the Preferred Alternative. Additional water lines would also be required, consistent with the Preferred Alternative, to connect to water mains in surrounding streets, but these would not be any greater than the lines required for the Preferred Alternative. The DEIR found that although Alternative 2 would use more water than the Preferred Alternative, neither would have a significant impact because the WSA identifies sufficient water supplies to serve either scenario and other present and anticipated needs for a normal year, as well as one or more multiple dry years, over the next 20 years. Wastewater services required for Alternative 2 would be similar to the Preferred Alternative. The sewage generated by the project would be somewhat reduced when compared to the Preferred Alternative, due to the lack of resort commercial development associated with Alternative 2, so sewage treatment capacity would be sufficient to serve the alternative. Additional sewer lines would also be required, consistent with the Preferred Alternative, to connect to sewer mains in surrounding streets, but these would not be any greater than the lines required for the Preferred Alternative. Burrtec would provide the property with solid waste services. Solid waste generated by Alternative 2 would be somewhat less than the waste generated by the Preferred Alternative, because of the reduction in resort and resort commercial uses on the property. Compared to Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative would generate somewhat greater amounts of solid waste, but impacts would be less than significant. Electricity would be required for construction and operation of Alternative 2. However, it is likely that electricity consumed by Alternative 2 would be somewhat reduced, as compared to the Preferred Alternative, as a result of replacing the resort uses and the Wave Basin included in the Preferred Alternative with single-family homes and a golf course. Given the residential and commercial development generated under Alternative 2, it is likely that the same improvements to the IID substation required under the Preferred Alternative would be required. These improvements will provide power for the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2. Natural Gas, provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), would be required for the operation of Alternative 2. However, the Supplemental Air Quality & GHG Assessment prepared for Revised Project concluded that natural gas consumption would be increased with the development of the 750 single family residential homes, golf course, and commercial space (due to the updates in CalEEMod see Energy discussion for further information). Alternative 2 would be required to connect to existing SoCalGas infrastructure to provide natural gas to the project. Additional natural gas infrastructure is not required for the Preferred Alternative and would not be expected for Alternative 2. The increase of natural gas demand would be less than significant. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 67 January 2024 87 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would be required to connect to existing telecommunication services, either by Frontier or Spectrum, to provide telecommunication services to the project site. Additional infrastructure would not be required. The increase of telecommunication demand for the site would be less than significant for both scenarios. Revised Project Similar to Alternative 2, the Revised Project would result in an increased demand for water to irrigate the golf course compared to the Preferred Alternative. The remaining utilities, including wastewater collection and treatment, solid waste, and telecommunication services would be similar under the Revised Project, Alternative 2, and the Preferred Alternative. However, as described below, none of these Alternatives, including the Revised Project, would cause any significant and unavoidable impacts concerning utilities. Water The Revised Project would have substantially the same demand for water as Alternative 2 during both construction and operation, as the same area would be disturbed and developed on the same property with the same mix of residential, golf, and commercial uses. Like Alternative 2, the Revised Project would develop up to 750 homes, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and an 18 -hole golf course. A new WSA has been prepared for the Revised Project and is attached as Appendix D, which takes into account updated information from CVWD regarding water supplies and the Indio Subbasin groundwater management efforts. Per this new WSA, the Revised Project would result in a total water demand of 1,220.74 acre-feet per year (AFY), which is greater than the water demand identified for Alternative 2 in the DEIR (1,058.54 AFY), but would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts because CVWD has adequate water supplies available to serve the Revised Project and all other present and anticipated needs for normal year, as well as one or more multiple dry years, over the next 20 years, as determined by CVWD in the approved WSA for the Revised Project. Table 24 Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 and Revised Project Total Water Demand As described in Section 7 of the WSA for the Revised Project, the water demand for the Revised Project is accounted for in CVWD long-term growth projections, and CVWD has adequate water supplies to serve the project and all other existing uses and planned future demand through 2045 during normal, single -dry -year, and multiple -dry -year conditions. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project (and Alternative 2) would use somewhat more water (approximately 1,220.74 AFY and 1058.54 AFY, respectively, vs. 958 AFY) but Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 68 January 2024 :: Preferred Alternative Alternative 2 Revised Project Total Water Demand 958.63 AFY 1,058.54 AFY 1,220.74 AFY As described in Section 7 of the WSA for the Revised Project, the water demand for the Revised Project is accounted for in CVWD long-term growth projections, and CVWD has adequate water supplies to serve the project and all other existing uses and planned future demand through 2045 during normal, single -dry -year, and multiple -dry -year conditions. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project (and Alternative 2) would use somewhat more water (approximately 1,220.74 AFY and 1058.54 AFY, respectively, vs. 958 AFY) but Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 68 January 2024 :: CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO would not exceed available supplies or interfere with CVWD's ongoing groundwater management efforts. Additional water lines would be required to connect to water mains in surrounding streets to serve the Revised Project, but these would not be any greater than the lines required for Alternative 2 or the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, consistent with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would have less than significant impacts related to water use or water supplies. Wastewater Wastewater services required for the Revised Project would be substantially the same as for Alternative 2 analyzed in the EIR. Additional sewer lines would be required to connect to sewer mains in surrounding streets to serve the Revised Project, but these would not be any greater than the lines required for the previously proposed project or Alternative 2 and would result in less than significant impacts. The Revised Project was estimated to generate wastewater at 34,200 GPD or 0.0342 MDG, which is 0.35 percent of the WRP-4's capacity, and which will increase flows by 0.72 percent over existing volumes. The Preferred Alternative was estimated to generate wastewater at 156,839 GPD or 0.157 MDG, which is one percent of the plant's capacity, and which would increase flows by 3.3 percent over existing volumes. The Revised Project would produce less wastewater effluent compared to the Preferred Alternative, due to the removal of the resort uses. The Revised Project, Alternative 2, and the Preferred Alternative would avoid causing existing volumes or planned capacity to be exceeded, and are consistent with the requirements set forth in CVWD's existing agreement to provide sanitary sewer service to the project. Impacts are less than significant. Solid Waste As with the previously proposed project and Alternative 2, Burrtec would provide the Revised Project with solid waste services. Construction waste produced by Revised Project would be the same as under Alternative 2 and, like the Preferred Alternative, would have less than significant impacts. Solid waste generated by Revised Project and Alternative 2 would be somewhat less than the Preferred Alternative because the proposed golf course uses would generate less solid waste than the resort uses. However, under all scenarios, impacts would be less than significant as all Alternatives would be required to comply with all recycling requirements and would not exceed any State or local standards or exceed available landfill capacity. Electricity The electricity required for construction and operation of the Revised Project would be substantially the same as Alternative 2 because both projects propose golf course, residential, and commercial uses on the same project site. As discussed above in the Energy section, the Revised Project would use approximately 8.7% less electricity than required for the Preferred Alternative because the golf course uses require significantly less energy than the Wave Basin and resort uses. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 69 January 2024 :• CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Like the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would be required to connect to and upgrade an existing IID substation to provide electricity to the project site, including improvements to the existing substation and installing an underground distribution line in existing, disturbed public right-of-way. The electrical demand for the Revised Project would be supported by this proposed infrastructure. Each Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to electricity, and no Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Natural Gas Natural gas, provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), would be required for the operation of the Revised Project in amounts substantially the same as for Alternative 2 because they both involve the same uses, at the same densities and intensities, on the same project site. As discussed above in the Energy section, although the Revised Project is replacing the Wave Basin and resort uses with single-family homes and a golf course, the Revised Project would use approximately 24% more natural gas than the Preferred Alternative, due to the updates to the CalEEMod modeling. The Revised Project would be required to connect to existing SoCalGas infrastructure to provide natural gas to the project site, as would be the case for both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2. Additional natural gas infrastructure is not required for the Revised Project or Alternative 2 and the increase in natural gas demand for all scenarios would be less than significant. Telecommunications Like Alternative 2, the Revised Project would be required to connect to existing infrastructure, either by Frontier or Spectrum, to provide telecommunication services to the site, including internet and cable services. Additional infrastructure would not be required. The increase of telecommunication demand for the Revised Project (and Alternative 2) would also be similar for the Preferred Alternative and would be less than significant for all three scenarios. Summary of Comparative Impacts A summary comparison of impacts associated with the project Alternatives is provided in Table 25, Comparison of Alternatives to Project. As displayed in the table, the first row indicates the proposed project and alternatives, while the following rows indicates the environmental topic and their impacts. The table provides the environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative (as analyzed in the DEIR) and whether Alternative 2 or the Revised Project reduces, increases, or creates similar impacts to the Preferred Alternative. As described in further detail above, the Revised Project would result in substantially the same impacts as Alternative 2 because both include developing the same uses, at the same densities and intensities, on the same project site. The refinements proposed to the boundaries of the golf/open Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 70 January 2024 .o CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO space and residential areas, and the minor adjustments to the respective acreages, would not alter any of the potentially significant adverse effects identified and analyzed in the DEIR for Alternative 2. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project will not have any new significant adverse environmental effects or substantially more severe environmental effects, other than an increase in VMT that exceeds the City's threshold of significance, as previously disclosed for Alternative 2 in the DEIR. As indicated in the table below, the Revised Project will have similar impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, public services, and tribal cultural resources compared to Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. This is because all scenarios propose the development of the approximately 385 -acre site. Any development that occurs on the site would be required to implement mitigation measures established to reduce impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources that occur or could occur onsite. Because the existing soil conditions at the project site did not exhibit the ideal conditions for development, mitigation measures were established to ensure that the onsite soil creates appropriate foundational conditions for development, which would apply to all three scenarios. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project would be required to implement the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR, and impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and public services at the project site would be less than significant. The Revised Project (and Alternative 2) would have reduced impacts in the areas of aesthetics, as compared to the Preferred Alternative, since the Revised Project does not include the 80 -foot light fixtures for the Wave Basin. However, Alternative 2, the Revised Project, and the Preferred Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to scenic vistas regarding Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains, since any development onsite would obstruct views of these natural landforms. The Revised Project (and Alternative 2) would also reduce impacts to electricity demands, land use and planning, and noise, since the Revised Project will not include the operation of the Wave Basin or resort facilities. Electricity consumed for the Wave Basin and resort facilities resulted in increased electricity use compared to Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. It is expected that the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would result in the same electricity, natural gas, and petroleum demand since they both propose 750 residential homes, 60,000 square feet of commercial, and a golf course. As discussed above, neither the Revised Project nor Alternative 2 would require changes to the land uses or zoning onsite, unlike the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would result in reduced impacts to land use and planning. Finally, noise would be reduced with the development and operation of the Revised Project and Alternative 2 because neither scenario includes the Wave Basin facility or resort component. The Revised Project and Alternative 2 would develop a residential golf community, similar to those in the surrounding area, therefore, noise would be reduced compared to the Preferred Alternative. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 71 January 2024 91 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO On the other hand, the Revised Project would have increased effects relating to air quality, energy resources (natural gas demand and petroleum use), GHG emissions, VMT, and water use. As analyzed above, the operation of the 750 residential homes, 60,000 square feet of commercial, and golf course cause an increase in daily vehicle trips compared to the Preferred Alternative. This is because the Preferred Alternative proposed fewer residential units and a mix of various land uses, which reduced VMTs. Alternative 2 and the Revised Project would increase impacts to air quality to significant and unavoidable levels, compared to the Preferred Alternative. GHG emissions and VMT impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. Finally, the addition of the golf course in Alternative 2 and the Revised Project results in an increase in water use compared to the Preferred Project, per the new WSA generated for the Revised Project and approved by CVWD. However, the WSA determined that the local water purveyor has enough water to supply the Revised Project. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. As determined above, the Revised Project and Alternative 2 will result in similar impacts because they both propose the development of 750 residential homes, 60,000 square feet of commercial, and a golf course. The land uses (Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Open Space Recreation) and zoning (Low Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Golf Couse) will remain the same with the Revised Project and Alternative 2. The Revised Project proposes a slight reconfiguration of the land uses to accommodate the golf course design, but the residential density and commercial square footage does not change. Cumulative impacts of Alternative 2 have been analyzed in the La Quinta General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Since the Revised Project proposes the same number of residential homes, commercial square footage, and golf course uses, cumulative impacts generated by the Revised Project would be similar to Alternative 2. Cumulative effects to aesthetics would be similar to the Alternative 2 since they both propose development of the project site and the development proposed is similar to uses in the surrounding area (north, east, and southeast) and has been analyzed in the GP and GP EIR. Cumulative impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to Alternative 2, since all scenarios propose development on the site, however, the site and future projects will be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Additionally, the Revised Project would result in similar impacts to public services compared to Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. These impacts are reduced by the payment of development impact fees. Future projects would be required to pay development impact fees to reduce impacts to public services. Impacts to geology and soils, land use and planning, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality, are site-specific and require some mitigation. Similar to the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative, future projects would be required to comply with local and state regulations, as well as mitigation measures (if necessary) to reduce impacts. Impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy resources, noise, transportation, and utilities would be reduced by local and state regulatory requirements and mitigation measures (if necessary). Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 72 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Future developments would be required to comply with local and state regulatory requirements and mitigation measures (if necessary) to reduce their impacts to air quality, GHG emissions, energy resources, noise, transportation, and utilities. Overall, the Revised Project, Alternative 2, and the Preferred Alternative would not result in cumulative impacts, as determined in the La Quinta General Plan, General Plan EIR, and in the DEIR. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 73 January 2024 93 7.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 25 Comparison of Alternatives and Project Environmental Topic Preferred Alternative Alternative 2 No Project/Existing Entitlements Revised Project0 Aesthetics Significant and Unavoidable Reduced (Significant and Unavoidable) Reduced (Significant and Unavoidable) Air Quality Less than Significant with Increased (Significant and Unavoidable) Increased (Significant and Unavoidable) Mitigation Biological Resources Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation) Mitigation) Cultural Resources Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation) Mitigation) Reduced Electricity; Increased Petroleum Reduced Electricity; Increased Energy Less than Significant Demand and Natural Gas (Less than Petroleum Demand and Natural Gas Significant) (Less than Significant) Geology and Soils Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation) Mitigation) Greenhouse Gas Significant and Unavoidable Increased (Significant and Unavoidable) Increased (Significant and Unavoidable) Hazards and Hazardous Less than Significant Similar (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant) Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant Similar (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant) Land Use and Planning Less than Significant Reduced (No Impact) Reduced (No Impact) Less than Significant with Reduced (operational) (Less than Significant Reduced (operational) (Less than Noise Mitigation with Mitigation) Significant with Mitigation) Public Services Less than Significant Similar (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant) Transportation Less than Significant with Increased (Significant and Unavoidable) Increased (Significant and Unavoidable) Mitigation Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation) Mitigation) Increased Water Demand and Natural Gas; Increased Water Demand and Natural Utilities & Service Systems Less than Significant Reduced Electricity; Similar Others (Less Gas; Reduced Electricity; Similar Others than Significant) (Less than Significant) Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 74 January 2024 94 URBAN CROSSROADS DATE: June 19, 2023 TO: Mr. John Gamlin, CM Wave Development LLC FROM: Haseeb Qureshi, Urban Crossroads, Inc. Shannon Wong, Urban Crossroads, Inc. JOB NO: 15455-02 AQ & GHG CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN SUPPLEMENTAL AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT Mr. John Gamlin, Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Supplemental Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment for the Club at Coral Mountain (Project). The Project is located on the southwest corner of re -aligned Madison Street at 58th Avenue in the City of La Quinta. This analysis provides air quality and greenhouse gas information regarding the Alternative 2 "Existing Entitlements" scenario presented in the CORAL MOUNTAIN ALTERNATIVES TRIP GENERATION AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS COMPARISON letter prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (May 2021). PROJECT OVERVIEW The Project does not change existing General Plan land use or zoning designations for the site, consistent with the approved Andaluisa Specific Plan and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310). A Specific Plan Amendment is proposed to adjust the location and layout of open space -recreation and low-density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of existing land use designations. It eliminates prior proposed land uses (no C -T Zone, surf wave basin, or hotel). The Project consists of a commercial corner (60,000 square feet of retail), an 18 -hole golf course, and up to 750 residential units. The preliminary site plan for Project Alternative 2 is shown on Exhibit 1. To ensure that this supplemental assessment is consistent with technical studies prepared for Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310), air quality and greenhouse gas estimates utilize a 2026 Opening Year consistent with the FEIR. 95 Mr. John Gamlin, CM Wave Development LLC June 19, 2023 Page 2 of 4 EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Residential Land Area: ± 193.7 Acres Commercial Land Area: ± 7.7 Acres Golf Course Area : ± 183.0 Acres Total Project Area - ± 384.4 Acres URBAN CROSSROADS 15455-02 AQ & G96 Mr. John Gamlin, CM Wave Development LLC June 19, 2023 Page 3 of 4 AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS The estimated maximum daily operational emissions are summarized in Table 1. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Attachment A. TABLE 1: TOTAL PROJECT REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS 11:744►I:16111► :110-1VI4LTA I&*IIQLP The estimated GHG emissions for the Project land use are summarized in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the Project would generate a total of approximately 14,563.80 MTCO2e/yr. Detailed operation model outputs for the proposed Project are presented in Attachment A. TABLE 2: PROPOSED PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS TOTAL Emissions (lbs/day) Source CO2 VOC NOx CO SOX PM11 PM2.1 0.49 0.57 Summer 11,623.49 Area Source 171.33 0.00 Mobile Source 54.21 45.96 448.99 1.02 33.14 6.40 Area Source 40.02 11.63 49.90 0.07 0.92 0.93 Energy Source 0.40 6.84 2.96 0.04 0.55 0.55 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 94.64 64.43 501.84 1.13 34.62 7.88 Winter Mobile Source 43.20 49.77 314.54 0.90 33.14 6.40 Area Source 35.82 11.20 4.76 0.07 0.91 0.91 Energy Source 0.40 6.84 2.96 0.04 0.55 0.55 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 79.42 67.81 322.26 1.02 34.60 7.86 11:744►I:16111► :110-1VI4LTA I&*IIQLP The estimated GHG emissions for the Project land use are summarized in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the Project would generate a total of approximately 14,563.80 MTCO2e/yr. Detailed operation model outputs for the proposed Project are presented in Attachment A. TABLE 2: PROPOSED PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS TOTAL URBAN ' CROSSROADS 15455-02 AQ & G9'9 Emission (lbs/day) Source CO2 CH4 N20 R Total CO2e Mobile Source 11,426.34 0.49 0.57 16.12 11,623.49 Area Source 171.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 171.54 Energy Source 2,375.97 0.25 0.02 0.00 2,387.18 Water 107.98 1.15 0.03 0.00 145.20 Waste 67.12 6.71 0.00 0.00 234.83 Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 1.56 Total CO2e (All Sources) 14,563.80 URBAN ' CROSSROADS 15455-02 AQ & G9'9 Mr. John Gamlin, CM Wave Development LLC June 19, 2023 Page 4 of 4 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS CONCLUSION Results of the assessment indicate that the Alternative 2 "Existing Entitlements" would result in slightly more emissions of VOCs compared to the May 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Air Quality Impact Analysis. Similarly, results of the assessment indicate that the Alternative 2 "Existing Entitlements" would result in slightly more greenhouse gas emissions compared to the May 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Greenhouse Gas Analysis. URBAN ' CROSSROADS 15455-02 AQ & G98 ATTACHMENT A CALEEMOD PROJECT EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS URBAN I CROSSROADS 15455-02 AQ & G99 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 15455 -Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 1 /32 100 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 4.3.2. Unmitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.2. Unmitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.2. Unmitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 2/32 101 5. Activity Data 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment 3/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 102 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 4/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 103 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data 5/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 104 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Project Name Operational Year Lead Agency Land Use Scale Analysis Level for Defaults Windspeed (m/s) Precipitation (days) Location County City Air District Air Basin TAZ EDFZ Electric Utility Gas Utility App Version 1.2. Land Use Types Single Family 750 Housing Dwelling Unit 244 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) 2026 Project/site County 3.00 8.80 33.625128, -116.253837 Riverside -Salton Sea La Quinta South Coast AQMD Salton Sea 5696 19 Imperial Irrigation District Southern California Gas 2022.1.1.13 1,462,500 6/32 8,784,643 2,423 105 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Regional Shopping 60.0 1000sgft 1.38 60,000 0.00 - - - Center Golf Course 18.0 Hole 126 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected 2. Emissions Summary 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summer (Max) Unmit. 64.8 94.6 64.4 502 1.13 2.20 32.4 34.6 2.16 5.72 7.88 472 133,078 133,550 53.3 5.11 325 136,731 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Winter (Max) Unmit. 49.3 79.4 67.8 322 1.02 2.18 32.4 34.6 2.14 5.72 7.86 472 121,491 121,963 53.6 5.24 17.6 124,882 Average - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Daily (Max) Unmit. 38.0 69.8 41.5 275 0.72 1.14 23.1 24.3 1.11 4.08 5.19 472 84,987 85,459 51.9 3.70 107 87,966 Annual- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Max) Unmit. 6.93 12.7 7.58 50.1 0.13 0.21 4.22 4.43 0.20 0.74 0.95 78.2 14,071 14,149 8.59 0.61 17.7 14,564 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 106 7/32 Daily, - - - - Summer 6.40 - 103,804 103,804 (Max) 4.80 316 105,655 0.07 Mobile 58.2 54.2 46.0 449 Area 5.76 40.0 11.6 49.9 Energy 0.80 0.40 6.84 2.96 Water - - - - Waste - - - - Refrig. - - - - Total 64.8 94.6 64.4 502 Daily, - - - - Winter - - - - (Max) - - 405 0.00 Mobile 47.2 43.2 49.8 315 Area 1.31 35.8 11.2 4.76 Energy 0.80 0.40 6.84 2.96 Water - - - - Waste - - - - Refrig. - - - - Total 49.3 79.4 67.8 322 Average - - - - Daily 92,342 92,342 4.39 4.94 Mobile 34.9 32.1 33.7 249 Area 2.28 37.3 0.98 22.6 Energy 0.80 0.40 6.84 2.96 Water - - - - Waste - - - - Refrig. - - - - 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 1.02 0.72 32.4 33.1 0.68 5.72 6.40 - 103,804 103,804 4.12 4.80 316 105,655 0.07 0.92 - 0.92 0.93 - 0.93 0.00 14,337 14,337 0.27 0.03 - 14,352 0.04 0.55 - 0.55 0.55 - 0.55 - 14,351 14,351 1.48 0.10 - 14,419 - - - - - - - 67.0 585 652 6.94 0.17 - 877 - - - - - - - 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 - 1,418 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 9.42 1.13 - 2.20 - 32.4 - 34.6 - 2.16 - 5.72 - 7.88 - 472 - 133,078 - 133,550 - 53.3 - 5.11 - 325 - 136,731 - 0.90 0.72 32.4 33.1 0.68 5.72 6.40 - 92,342 92,342 4.39 4.94 8.19 93,931 0.07 0.91 - 0.91 0.91 - 0.91 0.00 14,213 14,213 0.27 0.03 - 14,227 0.04 0.55 - 0.55 0.55 - 0.55 - 14,351 14,351 1.48 0.10 - 14,419 - - - - - - - 67.0 585 652 6.94 0.17 - 877 - - - - - - - 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 - 1,418 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 9.42 1.02 - 2.18 - 32.4 - 34.6 - 2.14 - 5.72 - 7.86 - 472 - 121,491 - 121,963 - 53.6 - 5.24 - 17.6 - 124,882 - 0.67 0.51 23.1 23.6 0.48 4.08 4.56 - 69,016 69,016 2.94 3.42 97.3 70,207 0.01 0.07 - 0.07 0.07 - 0.07 0.00 1,035 1,035 0.02 < 0.005 - 1,036 0.04 0.55 - 0.55 0.55 - 0.55 - 14,351 14,351 1.48 0.10 - 14,419 - - - - - - - 67.0 585 652 6.94 0.17 - 877 - - - - - - - 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 - 1,418 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 9.42 107 8/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Total 38.0 69.8 41.5 275 0.72 1.14 23.1 24.3 1.11 4.08 5.19 472 84,987 85,459 51.9 3.70 107 87,966 Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mobile 6.37 5.86 6.15 45.5 0.12 0.09 4.22 4.31 0.09 0.74 0.83 - 11,426 11,426 0.49 0.57 16.1 11,623 Area 0.42 6.80 0.18 4.12 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 0.00 171 171 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 172 Energy 0.15 0.07 1.25 0.54 0.01 0.10 - 0.10 0.10 - 0.10 - 2,376 2,376 0.25 0.02 - 2,387 Water - - - - - - - 11.1 96.9 108 1.15 0.03 - 145 Waste - - - - - - - 1.85 67.1 0.00 67.1 6.71 0.00 - 235 Refrig. - - - - - - - - Total 58.2 1.56 1.56 Total 6.93 12.7 7.58 50.1 0.13 0.21 4.22 4.43 0.20 0.74 0.95 78.2 14,071 14,149 8.59 0.61 17.7 14,564 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, Summer (Max) Single 29.1 27.0 24.1 238 0.55 0.39 17.5 17.9 0.36 3.09 3.46 - Family Housing Regional 27.3 25.6 20.0 191 0.42 0.30 13.4 13.7 0.28 2.36 2.64 - Shopping Center Golf 1.73 1.56 1.85 19.2 0.05 0.03 1.53 1.56 0.03 0.27 0.30 - Course Total 58.2 54.2 46.0 449 1.02 0.72 32.4 33.1 0.68 5.72 6.40 - 9/32 55,993 55,993 2.14 2.54 171 56,976 42,986 42,986 1.83 2.06 130 43,775 4,825 4,825 0.15 0.20 14.9 4,904 103,804 103,804 4.12 4.80 316 105,655 108 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Daily, - - - - - - 38,267 1.97 2.11 3.38 38,948 Winter 4,284 0.16 0.21 0.39 4,351 92,342 92,342 4.39 4.94 8.19 93,931 (Max) 7,696 0.32 0.38 10.9 7,827 3,000 3,000 0.14 0.16 4.20 3,054 Single 23.7 21.6 26.2 165 0.49 0.39 17.5 17.9 0.36 3.09 3.46 - Family Housing Regional 22.1 20.3 21.6 137 0.37 0.30 13.4 13.7 0.28 2.36 2.64 - Shopping Center Golf 1.43 1.27 2.02 12.7 0.04 0.03 1.53 1.56 0.03 0.27 0.30 - Course Total 47.2 43.2 49.8 315 0.90 0.72 32.4 33.1 0.68 5.72 6.40 - Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - Single 4.09 3.75 4.07 30.2 0.08 0.06 2.85 2.91 0.06 0.50 0.56 - Family Housing Regional 2.01 1.87 1.73 12.6 0.03 0.02 1.10 1.12 0.02 0.19 0.22 - Shopping Center Golf 0.27 0.24 0.35 2.63 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.28 0.01 0.05 0.05 - Course Total 6.37 5.86 6.15 45.5 0.12 0.09 4.22 4.31 0.09 0.74 0.83 - 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/dav for dailv. ton/vr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/dav for dailv. MT/vr for annual) 49,791 49,791 2.27 2.62 4.43 50,632 38,267 38,267 1.97 2.11 3.38 38,948 4,284 4,284 0.16 0.21 0.39 4,351 92,342 92,342 4.39 4.94 8.19 93,931 7,696 7,696 0.32 0.38 10.9 7,827 3,000 3,000 0.14 0.16 4.20 3,054 730 730 0.03 0.03 1.04 742 11,426 11,426 0.49 0.57 16.1 11,623 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summer (Max) 109 10/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Single - - - - - - - 5,036 5,036 0.63 0.08 - 5,075 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - 638 638 0.08 0.01 - 643 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,674 5,674 0.71 0.09 - 5,717 Daily, - Winter (Max) Single 5,036 5,036 0.63 0.08 - 5,075 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - - 638 638 0.08 0.01 - 643 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total - - - - - - - - 5,674 5,674 0.71 0.09 - 5,717 Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Single 834 834 0.10 0.01 - 840 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - - 106 106 0.01 < 0.005 - 106 Shopping Center Golf - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total - - - - - - - - - - - - 939 939 0.12 0.01 - 947 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 110 11 /32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summer (Max) Single 0.79 0.39 6.73 2.87 0.04 0.54 - 0.54 0.54 - 0.54 - 8,548 8,548 0.76 0.02 - 8,572 Family Housing Regional 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 - 129 129 0.01 < 0.005 - 129 Shopping Center Golf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total 0.80 0.40 6.84 2.96 0.04 0.55 - 0.55 0.55 - 0.55 - 8,677 8,677 0.77 0.02 - 8,702 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Winter (Max) Single 0.79 0.39 6.73 2.87 0.04 0.54 - 0.54 0.54 - 0.54 - 8,548 8,548 0.76 0.02 - 8,572 Family Housing Regional 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 - 129 129 0.01 < 0.005 - 129 Shopping Center Golf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total 0.80 0.40 6.84 2.96 0.04 0.55 - 0.55 0.55 - 0.55 - 8,677 8,677 0.77 0.02 - 8,702 Annual- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Single 0.14 0.07 1.23 0.52 0.01 0.10 - 0.10 0.10 - 0.10 - 1,415 1,415 0.13 < 0.005 - 1,419 Family Housing Regional < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 21.4 21.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 21.4 Shopping Center Golf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course 111 12/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Total 0.15 0.07 1.25 0.54 0.01 0.10 - 0.10 0.10 - 0.10 - 1,437 1,437 0.13 < 0.005 - 1,441 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.2. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summer (Max) Hearths 1.31 0.66 11.2 4.76 0.07 0.91 - 0.91 0.91 - 0.91 0.00 14,213 14,213 0.27 0.03 - 14,227 Consum - 32.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - er Products Architect - 2.58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ural Coatings Landsca 4.45 4.20 0.43 45.1 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.03 - 0.03 - 124 124 0.01 < 0.005 - 125 pe Equipme nt Total 5.76 40.0 11.6 49.9 0.07 0.92 - 0.92 0.93 - 0.93 0.00 14,337 14,337 0.27 0.03 - 14,352 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Winter (Max) Hearths 1.31 0.66 11.2 4.76 0.07 0.91 - 0.91 0.91 - 0.91 0.00 14,213 14,213 0.27 0.03 - 14,227 Consum - 32.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - er Products Architect - 2.58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ural Coatings Total 1.31 35.8 11.2 4.76 0.07 0.91 - 0.91 0.91 - 0.91 0.00 14,213 14,213 0.27 0.03 - 14,227 112 13/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - Hearths 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 0.00 161 161 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 161 Consum - 5.95 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - er Products Architect - 0.47 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ural Coatings Landsca 0.40 0.38 0.04 4.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 10.2 pe Equipme nt Total 0.42 6.80 0.18 4.12 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 0.00 171 171 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 172 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.2. Unmitigated Daily, Summer (Max) Single - - - - - - - - - - - 58.5 570 629 6.07 0.15 - 825 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - 8.52 15.1 23.7 0.88 0.02 - 51.8 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total - - - - - - - - - - - 67.0 585 652 6.94 0.17 - 877 113 14/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - Winter (Max) Single - 58.5 570 629 6.07 0.15 - 825 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - 8.52 15.1 23.7 0.88 0.02 - 51.8 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total - - - - - - - - - - - 67.0 585 652 6.94 0.17 - 877 Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Single - - - - - - - - - - - 9.68 94.4 104 1.00 0.03 - 137 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - 1.41 2.51 3.92 0.14 < 0.005 - 8.57 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total - - - - - - - - - - - 11.1 96.9 108 1.15 0.03 - 145 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.2. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/dav for dailv. ton/vr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/dav for dailv. MT/vr for annual) Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summer (Max) 114 15/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Single - - - - - - - - - 370 0.00 370 37.0 0.00 - 1,295 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - 34.0 0.00 34.0 3.39 0.00 - 119 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - - - 1.29 0.00 1.29 0.13 0.00 - 4.52 Course Total - 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 - 1,418 Daily, - - - Winter (Max) Single - - - - - - - - - - - 370 0.00 370 37.0 0.00 - 1,295 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - 34.0 0.00 34.0 3.39 0.00 - 119 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - - - 1.29 0.00 1.29 0.13 0.00 - 4.52 Course Total - - - - - - - - 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 - 1,418 Annual - - - - - Single 61.3 0.00 61.3 6.13 0.00 - 214 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - 5.62 0.00 5.62 0.56 0.00 - 19.7 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.02 0.00 - 0.75 Course Total - - - - - - - - - - - 67.1 0.00 67.1 6.71 0.00 - 235 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 115 16/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 4.6.1. Unmitigated Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Summer (Max) Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.37 9.37 Family Housing Regional — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05 Shopping Center Golf — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 Course Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 9.42 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Winter (Max) Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.37 9.37 Family Housing Regional — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05 Shopping Center Golf — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 Course Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 9.42 Annual— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.55 1.55 Family Housing 116 17/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Regional — — — — — Shopping Center Golf — — — — — — — — — — — Course Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) — — — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — 1.56 1.56 Daily, — — — — — — Summer (Max) Total — — — — — — Daily, — — — — — — Winter (Max) Total — Annual — Total — 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 18/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — Summer (Max) Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Winter (Max) Total— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Annual— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Total— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Annual— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Total— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 19/32 118 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total — — — — — — — — — — — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — Summer (Max) Total — Daily, — Winter (Max) Total — Annual — Total — 20/32 119 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Summer (Max) Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ered Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — d Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Winter (Max) Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Sequest — — — — — — — — ered Subtotal — — — — Remove — d Subtotal Annual Avoided Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 120 21 /32 Sequest — — — — Subtotal — — Remove — d Subtotal 5. Activity Data 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Single Family 6,165 7,110 Housing Regional Shopping 2,222 6,969 Center Golf Course 374 358 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces Gas Fireplaces Propane Fireplaces 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 6,360 2,309,668 55,000 63,431 56,740 20,605,336 5,092 1,208,160 13,767 48,325 35,311 7,950,146 340 133,915 5,524 5,288 5,022 1,977,847 0 675 0 22/32 121 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 75 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 2961562.5 987,188 90,000 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Snow Days day/yr Summer Days day/yr 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N20 and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Electricity (kWh/yr) • Single Family Housing 7,004,433 262 0.0330 Regional Shopping Center 887,044 262 0.0330 Golf Course 0.00 262 0.0330 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Single Family Housing 30,505,331 23/32 30,000 0.00 180 0.0040 26,673,236 0.0040 402,766 0.0040 0.00 201,482,379 122 Regional Shopping Center 4,444,351 Golf Course 0.00 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Single Family Housing 687 Regional Shopping Center 63.0 Golf Course 2.40 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Single Family Housing Average room A/C & User Defined 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Me, 750 Other residential A/C 2.50 2.50 and heat pumps 1,430 Single Family Housing Household refrigerators R -134a 1.00 and/or freezers < 0.005 Regional Shopping Other commercial A/C User Defined Center and heat pumps 1.00 Regional Shopping Stand-alone retail User Defined Center refrigerators and 4.00 18.0 freezers 0.04 Golf Course Other commercial A/C User Defined and heat pumps Golf Course Stand-alone retail User Defined refrigerators and freezers 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Me, 750 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 750 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 150 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 750 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 150 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 24/32 123 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type Fuel Type 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 25/32 124 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal -Adapt midcentury 2040-2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. Temperature and Extreme Heat 23.8 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth Wildfire 1.02 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal -Adapt, 2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about 3/4 an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal -Adapt (2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIR005). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft. Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal -Adapt (2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIR005). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 125 26/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought 0 0 0 N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2 Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought 1 1 1 2 Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. 126 27/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden Exposure Indicators — AQ -Ozone 88.7 AQ -PM 7.70 AQ -DPM 31.9 Drinking Water 45.4 Lead Risk Housing 0.23 Pesticides 0.00 Toxic Releases 1.99 Traffic 1.51 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 0.00 Groundwater 0.00 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 0.00 Impaired Water Bodies 0.00 Solid Waste 0.00 Sensitive Population — Asthma 30.6 Cardio -vascular 44.1 28/32 to other census tracts in the state. 127 Low Birth Weights Socioeconomic Factor Indicators Education Housing Linguistic Poverty Unemployment 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A Economic Above Poverty Employed Median HI Education Bachelor's or higher High school enrollment Preschool enrollment Transportation Auto Access Active commuting Social 2 -parent households Voting Neighborhood Alcohol availability 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 9.73 8.04 9.46 10.4 86.8 score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions co 95.6242782 0.667265495 96.99730527 86.93699474 100 84.22943667 77.83908636 1.039394328 99.56371102 90.82509945 93.32734505 29/32 to other census tracts in the state. 128 Park access Retail density Supermarket access Tree canopy Housing Homeownership Housing habitability Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden Uncrowded housing Health Outcomes Insured adults Arthritis Asthma ER Admissions High Blood Pressure Cancer (excluding skin) Asthma Coronary Heart Disease Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Diagnosed Diabetes Life Expectancy at Birth Cognitively Disabled Physically Disabled Heart Attack ER Admissions Mental Health Not Good Chronic Kidney Disease Obesity 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 13.6147825 9.29038881 2.399589375 53.34274349 99.40972668 98.58847684 71.07660721 99.08892596 96.93314513 93.18619274 0.0 75.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.3 92.5 95.1 61.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30/32 129 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Pedestrian Injuries 19.6 Physical Health Not Good 0.0 Stroke 0.0 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 0.0 Current Smoker 0.0 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.0 SLR Inundation Area 0.0 Children 97.7 Elderly 0.4 English Speaking 98.1 Foreign -born 10.3 Outdoor Workers 98.2 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 84.8 Traffic Density 1.0 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — Hardship 9.7 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 99.2 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 4.00 130 31 /32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 78.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low -Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Operations: Vehicle Data Operations: Hearths Operations: Architectural Coatings Operations: Refrigerants Trip characteristics based on information provided in the trip generation assessment SCAQMD Rule 445 no wood burning devices. Wood burning devices added to gas devices. SCAQMD Rule 1113 As of 1 January 2022, new commercial refrigeration equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater. Further, R -404A (the CaIEEMod default) is unacceptable for new supermarket and cold storage systems as of 1 January 2019 and 2023, respectively. Beginning 1 January 2025, all new air conditioning equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 750 or greater. 131 32/32 URBANCROSSROADS 15455-03 Club at Coral Mtn Supplemental LOS Assessment. docx May 26, 2023 Mr. John Gamlin CM Wave Development LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 81301 CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN SUPPLEMENTAL LOS ASSESSMENT Dear Mr. John Gamlin: The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this Supplemental Assessment for the proposed Club at Coral Mountain development ("Project"), which is located on the southwest corner of re -aligned Madison Street at 58th Avenue in the City of La Quinta. This analysis provides traffic level of service (LOS) information regarding the Alternative 2 "Existing Entitlements" scenario presented in the CORAL MOUNTAIN ALTERNATIVES TRIP GENERATION AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS COMPARISON letter prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (May 2021). The Project does not change existing General Plan land use or zoning designations for the site, consistent with the approved Andalusia Specific Plan and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310). A Specific Plan Amendment is proposed to adjust the location and layout of open space -recreation and low density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of existing land use designations. It eliminates prior proposed land uses (no C -T Zone, surf wave basin, or hotel). The Project consists of a commercial corner (60,000 square feet of retail), an 18 -hole golf course, and up to 750 residential units. For this supplemental LOS assessment, information regarding Project traffic flows on adjacent roadways is provided. A VMT assessment has been prepared in a separate document. To ensure that this supplemental assessment is consistent with technical studies prepared for Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310), traffic projections utilize the 2026 and 2040 "without Project" datasets presented in the October 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. PROJECT ACCESS The Project is proposed to be served by the access locations listed below: • Madison Street / Main Access (residential and golf full access) • South Access / Avenue 60 (resident only access) • Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 (commercial corner full access) • Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 (commercial corner right-in/right-out access) 20341 SW Birch Street I Suite 230 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 (949) 660-1994 1 urhanxroads.com 132 CM Wave Development LLC May 26, 2023 Page 2 of 36 • Madison Street / Project Access 3 (commercial corner right-in/right-out access) • Madison Street / Golf Course Service Access (full access, maintenance) To meet the City of La Quinta separation standard between driveways along Avenue 58 and adjacent to the Project commercial corner, Project Access 1 will be located 250 feet east of S. Valley Lane and approximately 280 feet west of Project Access 2. All other proposed Project access locations meet City of La Quinta intersection spacing standards. A preliminary site plan the Project is shown on Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2 depicts the location of the Project in relation to the existing roadway network and overall study area. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Table 1 shows the summary of future intersection operations with and without improvements for the following scenarios: • Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects without the Project for 2026 • Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative Projects (EAPC) for 2026 • General Plan buildout (2040) Without Project Conditions • General Plan buildout (2040) With Project Conditions The project's cumulative impacts at the study area intersections are mitigated to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS "D" or better) with cumulative improvements shown on Exhibit 3. These cumulative improvements are consistent with the October 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. A summary of roadway segment volume -to -capacity analysis is provided on Table 2 for the above scenarios, including General Plan improvements for 2040 conditions. Study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for EAPC 2026 and General Plan buildout (2040) traffic conditions. Avenue 58 shall be constructed to its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary along the commercial portion of the Project. Madison Street shall be constructed to its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary along the commercial and residential portions of the Project. Avenue 60 shall be constructed as a 2 -lane roadway along the Project boundary. For Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 (intersection 20), provide northbound cross -street stop control. Construct south leg with one shared northbound left -right turn lane. Accommodate westbound left turn lane within two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) striping. Northbound cross -street stop control should be provided for Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 (intersection 21). Construct south leg with one right turn outbound lane. Left turns shall not be accommodated at this intersection. URBAN CROSSROADS 2 133 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN S&'" AVE Club at Coral Mountain Residential Land Area: ± 193.7 Acres Commercial Land Area : ± 7.7 Acres Golf Course Area : ± 1$3.0 Acres Total Project Area : ± 384.4 Acres R7llfEliANCE 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg _ 134 URBAN I CROSSROADS AVENUE 50 )1 Y N z O w I f- tA z 0 tA CITY OF LA QIIINTA Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 2: STUDY AREA 50TH AV. AVENUE 52 O 0 AIRPORT BL. 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg MAIN ACCESS AREA z O AVENUE 58 0 OU ' o;u aQ w PROJECT1�©• ACCESS SITE Mp�N p00�5 :19 58TH AV. 3q COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE o 0 Y 4 GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA LEGEND: = EXISTING ANALYSIS LOCATION �5 = FUTURE ANALYSIS LOCATION O-Lp = ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATION ---- = FUTURE ROADWAY / DIRT = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 135 i SITE COGFC IMq ry NC�SSSE.,.. �QO LEGEND: = EXISTING ANALYSIS LOCATION �5 = FUTURE ANALYSIS LOCATION O-Lp = ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATION ---- = FUTURE ROADWAY / DIRT = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 135 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS 2026 General Plan Buildout (2040) Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Traffic Delay (Secs)' Level of Service' Delay (Secs)' Level of Service' Traffic Delay (Secs)' Level of Service' Delay (Secs)' Level of Service' # Intersection Control' AM PM AM PM AM PM I AM PM Control' AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. /Avenue 58 AWS 12.7 20.8 B C 19.9 >A C F -With Improvements TS 27.4 32.0 C C 27.0 32.1 C C TS 40.1 63.2 D E 41.7 70.3 D E - With Modified GPCE Improvements TS 34.5 45.5 C D 35.3 54.9 D D 2 Madison St. /Airport Blvd. TS 9.6 10.9 A B 9.5 10.7 _ A B TS 23.2 28.6 C C 23.7 29.7 C C 3 Madison St. /Avenue 54 AWS 79.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 41.2 43.6 D D 42.3 52.8 D D TS 42.9 49.0 D D 44.2 53.3 D D 4 Madison St. /Avenue 52 TS 31.6 32.3 C C 32.4 33.4 C C TS 38.8 52.0 D D 39.5 53.7 D D 5 Madison St. /Avenue 50 TS 31.9 33.4 C _ C 32.3 33.7 C C TS 36.7 53.2 D D 37.6 54.9 D D 6 Jefferson St. /Avenue 54 AWS 40.6 >80 E F 57.6 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 22.7 22.5 C C 22.6 22.7 C C TS 24.0 43.5 C D 24.2 48.4 C D 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 524 RDB >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements RDB 15.1 28.3 C D 17.5 34.8 C D RDB 5.8 8.3 A A 5.9 9.1 A A 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 19.4 35.4 B D 19.5 35.9 B D TS 6.3 21.2 A C 6.4 21.4 A C 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 52.4 58.8 D E 53.2 60.3 D E -With Improvements TS 51.4 51.0 D D 52.0 51.7 D D TS 41.5 52.8 D D 42.3 54.6 D D 10 Madison St. /Avenue 60 AWS 9.4 12.8 A B 10.5 15.4 B C -With Improvements TS 50.9 48.0 D D 49.6 53.1 D D 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 25.9 76.4 D F 32.7 >80 D F -With Improvements TS 33.3 34.9 C C 34.8 38.3 C D TS 45.1 98.8 D F 45.7 >80 D F - With Added GPCE Improvements TS 36.7 50.3 D D 37.2 53.0 D D 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 52.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 23.2 33.3 C C 26.6 41.1 C D TS 47.8 72.0 D E 50.9 76.4 D E - With Added GPCE Improvements TS 38.0 48.6 D D 39.5 52.2 D D 13 Monroe St. /Airport Blvd. AWS 47.3 >80 E F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 24.0 24.9 C C 24.5 26.3 C C TS 33.3 44.1 C D 34.0 45.4 C D 14 Monroe St. /Avenue 54 AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 34.7 37.0 C D 35.2 38.0 D D TS 31.5 52.5 C D 31.4 54.5 C D 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 33.7 41.2 C D 34.2 45.3 C D TS 39.0 52.7 D D 39.0 54.3 D D 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 17.7 25.0 B C 17.9 26.0 B C TS 34.5 53.3 C D 34.7 54.5 C D 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 9.5 16.9 A C 10.1 23.4 B C -With Improvements TS 29.7 36.7 C D 30.7 38.0 C D 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS Future Intersection 9.0 9.1 A A CSS Future Intersection 34.6 34.3 D D 19 Madison St. / Main Access TS Future Intersection _ 13.2 12.3 B B TS Future Intersection 9.6 11.2 A B 20 Project Access 1 /Avenue 58 CSS Future Intersection 10.1 11.1 B B CSS Future Intersection 12.7 14.4 B B 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS Future Intersection _ 9,4 10.0 A A CSS Future Intersection 10.2 10.4 B B 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS Future Intersection 9.7 A A CSS Future Intersection 13.7 14.6 B B 23 Madison St. / Golf Course S. Access CSS Future Intersection _ I 10.3 _11.8 11.3 A B CSS Future Intersection 25.1 32.9 B B ' Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), 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. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 2 CSS = Cross -street Stop; TS =Traffic Signal; AWS = All -way Stop; RDB = Roundabout; 1 = Improvement F.:=RjobsL 15100-155001-154001154551Excel1[15455 - Report.xlsx]l - LOS Summary 5 136 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 3 (1 OF 2): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS MADISON ST. & 2 MADISON ST. & 3 MADISON ST. & 4 MADISON ST. & 5 MADISON ST. & 6 JEFFERSON ST. & AVENUE 58 AIRPORT BLVD. AVENUE 54 AVENUE 52 AVENUE 50 AVENUE 54 �IIII a ,JI _ _ IIII J l l l LL, J L �- _ J l L � �► � Z f f � '1 f f f I' ----- ----- ---------------- ----- DEFT DEF ----- ----- 3 3 z ----- ----- � - ------------ - - ----- -T - - ---------- — - ---- --- ----- o _ NO SAME AS 2026 SAME AS 2026 W 0 0 N F_ IMPROVEMENTS 11 IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS ' a = F_ N IMPROVEMENTS � = 3 3 RTO U f__ �i� �ii �iiLL �ii NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS i zo J► 111 a 0 1� a �� 1�� } t 11 t tt� J f 1 (RESTRIPE) t 0 --- ----- -- F 3 0 F z --- ----- -----------------� ----- --DEFT ------------ ----- - ---� ----- O U O U ~O U SAME AS 2040 NO SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 N WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS = F_ IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS = 3 JEFFERSON ST. & 8 JEFFERSON ST. & 9 JEFFERSON ST. & 10 MADISON & I I MONROE ST. & 12 MONROE ST. & AVENUE 52 POMELO AVENUE 50 AVENUE 60 AVENUE 60 AVENUE 58 a U W J l l l LL, J L �- _ J l L � �► � Z f f � '1 f f f I' ----- ----- ---------------- ----- ------------------------ ----- ----- 3 z 0 u F u `D N SAME AS 2026NO SAME AS 2026 NO SAME AS 2026 SAME AS 2026 W 0 0 N WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS = 3 NO IMPROVEMENTS i zo 111 1� a �� 1�� 0 --- ----- ------------------ — ---- 3 z O U u O � SAME AS 2040 NO SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 ' o N WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS = 3 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID = EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL = CITY CIP TRAFFIC SIGNAL = NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL = EXISTING ROUNDABOUT = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT L =EXISTING LANE k� = FREE RIGHT TURN DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP Rio = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) GO = ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (GPA OPTION 1) = LEFT TURN LANE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE STRIPED MEDIAN 15455 - 05 - improvements.dwg 137 6 =LANE IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) L = ADDITIONAL LANE IMPROVEMENT =PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT k� = FREE RIGHT TURN DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP Rio = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) GO = ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (GPA OPTION 1) = LEFT TURN LANE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE STRIPED MEDIAN 15455 - 05 - improvements.dwg 137 6 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 3 (2 OF 2): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 13 MONROE ST. & 14 MONROE ST. & 15 MONROE ST. & 16 MONROE ST. & 17 JACKSON ST. & 18 S. ACCESS & MAIN ACCESS AIRPORT BLVD. AVENUE 54 AVENUE 52 50TH AVENUE 58TH AVENUE AVENUE 60 DEF RTO FUTURE W FUTURE I �♦ I I INTERSECTION INTERSECTION it INTERSECTION z s FUTURE a = O _Ji _71Z M INTERSECTION O N Ei z z - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i ~ O L F 3 z 0 z - - - - - - - - - - ----, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- 0 NO o p F U IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS 2026 SAME AS 2046 SAME AS 2026 NO NO 0 WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS 3 x t- U O FUTURE FUTURE 3 FUTURE NO sro N INTERSECTION INTERSECTION Q INTERSECTION a RTO I z o = o 3 W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - z z O U ~ u O SAME AS 2026 SAME AS 2026 ao WITH PROJECT WITH PROJECT FUTURE INTERSECTION a =o z �l1I� IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS o� (RESTRIPE)Mr 3 z - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U U O SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 T o N WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT a IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS x t- 3 19 MADISON ST. & 20 PROJECT ACCESS 1 & 21 PROJECT ACCESS 2 & 22 MADISON ST. & 23 MADISON ST. & GOLF GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT MAIN ACCESS AVENUE 58 AVENUE 58 PROJECT ACCESS 3 COURSE S. ACCESS =PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT U O FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE �♦ a INTERSECTION INTERSECTION INTERSECTION INTERSECTION z = O 3 Ei z z - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 F U U W � N NO o 11 IMPROVEMENTS a �► i x 3 U O FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE NO a INTERSECTION INTERSECTION INTERSECTION INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS I z = o 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - z z O U ~ u O SAME AS 2026 SAME AS 2026 ao WITH PROJECT WITH PROJECT NO a N IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS 3 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID = EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL = CITY CIP TRAFFIC SIGNAL 0 = NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL = EXISTING ROUNDABOUT = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT L =EXISTING LANE k� = FREE RIGHT TURN DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP Rio = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) GO = ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (GPA OPTION 1) = LEFT TURN LANE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE STRIPED MEDIAN 15455 - 05 - improvements.dwg 138 7 =LANE IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) L = ADDITIONAL LANE IMPROVEMENT =PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT k� = FREE RIGHT TURN DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP Rio = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) GO = ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (GPA OPTION 1) = LEFT TURN LANE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE STRIPED MEDIAN 15455 - 05 - improvements.dwg 138 7 URBAN CROSSROADS TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS Club at Coral Mountain 2026 Potentially GPBO (2040) Without Project With Project Significant # of Without Project With Project Roadway # of Existing Cumulative Lanes 2040 Roadway Segment Designation Lanes' Capacity' ADTz WC ADTz WC Impact3 7 Capacity' ADTz WC ADTz WC West of Madison St. Secondary 3 21,000 4 5,700 0.27 6,300 0.30 No 4 28,000 11,800 0.42 12,500 0.45 Avenue 58 West of Monroe St. Secondary 4 28,000 5,800 0.21 8,300 0.30 No 4 28,000 11,600 0.41 14,000 0.50 West of Jackson St. Secondary 2 14,000 4 4,800 0.34 5,900 0.42 No 4 28,000 17,900 0.64 19,000 0.68 Madison St. South of Airport BI. Primary 4 42,600 14,200 0.33 18,100 0.42 No 4 42,600 30,100 0.71 34,000 0.80 Avenue 60 West of Monroe St. Secondary 3 21,000 4 6,900 0.33 8,500 0.40 No 4 28,000 22,400 0.80 24,000 0.86 Monroe St. South of Airport BI. Primary 3 31,950 5 12,000 0.38 13,400 0.42 No 4 42,600 24,600 0.58 26,000 0.61 'These maximum roadway capacities have been extracted from the City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (October 2017). These roadway capacities are "rule of thumb" estimates for planning purposes. The LOS E service volumes are estimated maximum daily capacity for respective classifications. Capacity is affected by such factors as intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 2 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 3 A potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is defined to occur on any road segment if the project would cause the existing LOS to fall to worse than LOS D for EAPC (2026) With Project volumes. A potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is also defined to occur if the segment is projected to be operating at LOS E or LOS F with project traffic included and the V/C is increased by 0.02 or more by addition of project traffic. 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Secondary capacity. s Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Primary capacity. 71 = Existing number of lanes; 1 = City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes F.WXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551 Exceh[15455 - Reportxlsx]2 - Roadway Segment Summary 8 139 CM Wave Development LLC May 26, 2023 Page 9 of 36 For Madison Street & Project Access 3 (intersection 22), provide eastbound cross -street stop control. Construct west leg with one right turn outbound lane. Left turns shall not be accommodated at this intersection. For Madison Street & Main Access (intersection 19), construct west leg with one left turn outbound and one right turn outbound lane. The main Project driveway is a full access location, serving left and right turns to and from Madison Street. A traffic signal will be warranted at this location with full occupancy of the Project. The northbound left turn lane serving the main Project driveway is recommended to provide 200 feet of vehicle queuing. For South Access & Avenue 60 (intersection 18), provide southbound cross -street stop control and add access control to serve Project residents only. Construct north leg with one shared left -right outbound lane. Construct west leg with one shared left -through lane. Construct east leg with one through lane and a separate westbound right turn lane. The Madison Street / Golf Course Service Access (intersection 23) is located at an existing partially improved driveway labeled Calle Conchita. Existing Madison Street improvements at this location include the median break and northbound left turn lane which accommodate buildout of the Project golf maintenance facility. Exhibit 4 shows Project access and site -adjacent improvements to be constructed in conjunction with development. PROJECT TRIP GENERTION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Trip generation rates are presented on Table 3 for Project buildout conditions based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 11th Edition (2021). ITE trip generation rates for Single Family Detached Residential (Code 210), Golf Course (Code 430), and Shopping Center (Code 821) are used. The Project land uses includes a mix of commercial retail, golf and residential uses, so reasonable assumptions regarding internal/pass-by interactions between these uses are included in the trip generation calculations. Residents and golf visitors will use the commercial retail area facilities (which typically include merchandise and restaurant land uses). The total internal/pass-by trip ends have been adjusted in a manner to ensure that no "double -counting' occurs before assigning the project trips to the roadway network. As shown on Table 3, the site is anticipated to generate a net total of 8,762 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 591 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 834 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour. The trip distribution patterns for the Project residential and golf components are graphically depicted on Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively. Exhibit 7 shows the trip distribution pattern for the Project commercial corner. The trip distributions have been developed based on RivTAM and local knowledge in the vicinity of the Project site and refined to reflect the roadway network and the surrounding uses in the vicinity. URBAN CROSSROADS 9 140 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS CONSTRUCT AVENUE 58 TO ITS ULTIMATE HALF SECTION WIDTH AS A 4 -LANE SECONDARY ROADWAY FROM MADISON STREET TO THE WESTERLY PROJECT BOUNDARY IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT. 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 DRIVEWAYS SHOULD BE REVIEWED WITH RESPECT TO CITY OF LA QUINTA SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF FINAL GRADING, LANDSCAPE AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS. 58 1.w' W' PROJECT a a a ACCESS 3 Commercial �04FO LEGEND: CONSTRUCT MADISON STREET S MURS A CFSSF TO ITS ULTIMATE HALF SECTION �N WIDTH AS A 4 -LANE SECONDARY P CESS ROADWAY FROM AVENUE 58 TO z 11 M THE SOUTHERLY PROJECT TO THE EASTERLY PROJECT BOUNDARY IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT. I �04FO LEGEND: CONSTRUCT AVENUE 60 ASA S MURS A CFSSF ® = INTERSECTION ID 2 -LANE ROADWAY FROM THE i h11 �'Y': WESTERLY PROJECT BOUNDARY z 11 M i = STOP SIGN TO THE EASTERLY PROJECT =NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOUNDARY IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT. = EXISTING LANE NEAR TERM LANE IMPROVEMENT 0I Lu "I = 2040 LANE IMPROVEMENT LEFT TURN LANE AVENUE 80 ACCOMMODATED WITHIN EXISTING TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE (TWLTL) 18 S. Access & Avenue 60 19 Madison St. & Main Access 20 Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 21 Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 22 Madison St. & Project Access 3 23 Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access + i h11 �'Y': � t''- z 11 M � �tf � s► 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 141 10 URBAN CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 3: PROJECT BUILDOUT, EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates' ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Single Family Detached 210 750 DU 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94 9.43 Shopping Center (40-150k) 821 60 TSF 1.07 0.66 1.73 2.54 2.65 5.19 67.52 Golf Course 430 18 HOLES 1.39 0.37 1.76 1.54 1.37 2.91 30.38 Trip Generation Results 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 11 142 ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Single Family Detached 210 750 DU 135 390 525 443 263 706 7,073 Internal to Retail/Golf Course (5) (11) (16) (28) (27) (55) (662) Residential External Trips 130 379 509 415 236 651 6,411 Shopping Center (40-150k) 821 60 TSF 64 40 104 152 159 311 4,051 Pass -By (25%) (13) (13) (26) (39) (39) (78) (1,013) Internal to Residential/Golf Course (10) (6) (16) (33) (35) (68) (816) Shopping Center External Trips 41 21 62 80 85 165 2,222 Golf Course 430 18 HOLES 25 7 32 28 25 53 547 Internal to Residential/Retail (7) (5) (12) (18) (17) (35) (418) Golf Course External Trips 18 2 20 10 8 18 129 Project Subtotal 224 437 661 623 447 1,070 11,671 Internal Capture Subtotal (22) (22) (44) (79) (79) (158) (1,896) Pass -By (Shopping Center) (13) (13) (26) (39) (39) (78) (1,013) Project Total External Trips 189 402 591 505 329 834 8,762 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF =Thousand Square Feet F.1 UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551Excell[15455 - Report.xlsx]3 - TG 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 11 142 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 5: PROJECT RESIDENTIAL EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 o u u5 o 50T V. O 5 __ _AVENUE 50 Z W O POMELO D Ln Z Ln AVENUE 52 II�nI NLn z "SEE INSET" N !n / W 1 AVENUE54 ` I is 58TJd Au, 5 30 15 Ln IBL Ln F.CITY OF LA QUINTA r z A POR 5 Club at Coral Mountain ON-SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION tA z O LA0 a AVENUE 58 �N o I 30 as Wn Ou ga.PROJECT ......ACCESS 3 —,i 11 o .o SITE 1 pCyEi'� 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 12 143 F0 Z W O D Ln Z N II�nI 'n "SEE INSET" / NUE - f I is 58TJd Au, 30 15 10 r z t0 SITE ,, Ln o a--------- 1 S. ACCESS ~�►_T-----AVENUE-6.0 ------------ !160TH' V. LEGEND: \\I 2 -, 2 =r_L 10 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT I = FUTURE ROADWAY 'n T = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 12 143 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 6: PROJECT GOLF COURSE EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 o u u5 0 5 AVENUE 50 POMELO un z 0 N d' W 4 W CITY OF LA QUINTA -� ,T-- MAIN ACCESS AREA �—�T AVENUE 52 5 Ln I AVENUE 54 5 — ~ I1 5 PORT BL. U Club at Coral Mountain 5 W z N Ln NUE 58TM-Au, 35 15 1( U, ' GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT = FUTURE ROADWAY (� = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 13 144 — I "05 SITE o=� 'Si I r - S. ACCESS- II I ,T-- MAIN ACCESS AREA �—�T AVENUE 52 5 Ln I AVENUE 54 5 — ~ I1 5 PORT BL. U Club at Coral Mountain 5 W z N Ln NUE 58TM-Au, 35 15 1( U, ' GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT = FUTURE ROADWAY (� = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 13 144 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 7: PROJECT SHOPPING CENTER EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION Club at Coral Mountain ON-SITE OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION N Z C O N_ 25 f AVENUE 58 �- _' 1 --15 u+ W I 15 30 15 _ .0. o �.�.5 20 - as PROJECT ACCE55.3— 20_ IO N SITE Nom\Mp\N A�CE55 1 ON-SITE INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION o � M � Z O N 30 AVENUE 58 10 f 20 25 ou WN 20 a¢ PROJECT -T 1 ACCESS 3 — I SITE VIA ANN Gf 5 `\ LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT = FUTURE ROADWAY = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 14 145 CM Wave Development LLC May 26, 2023 Page 15 of 36 Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 8 through 10, respectively. EAPC 2026 CONDITIONS Estimates of Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC 2026) ADT, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 11, 12 and 13, respectively. LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under EAPC 2026 traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with those described in the October 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 4, which indicates that the following eight study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC conditions: • Madison Street at Avenue 58 • Madison Street at Project Main Access • Madison Street at Avenue 54 • Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 • Monroe Street at Avenue 60 • Monroe Street at Avenue 58 • Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard • Monroe Street at Avenue 54 • Monroe Street at Avenue 52 In addition, for Jefferson Street at Avenue 50, a second westbound through lane is necessary to maintain acceptable level of service. EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively impacted intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 52). The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC 2026 traffic conditions are included in Attachment 1. Table 4 also documents conditions with improvements to attain acceptable LOS. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. Table 5 provides a summary of the EAPC 2026 traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds. As shown on 4, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS under EAPC 2026 traffic conditions. A queuing analysis was performed for With Project Conditions to assess the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the Project entries. Queuing analysis findings are presented in Table 6 for EAPC 2026 traffic conditions. Queueing analysis worksheets for EAPC 2026 are also provided in Attachment 1. URBAN CROSSROADS 15 146 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 8: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 0.3 z 0 (ITY OF LA QUINTA 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg Q MAIN ACCESS AREA 0.3 16 Club at Coral Mountain I F Il z 0 0.7 0.6 AVENUE 58 0.7 r 4.4 U �n R Y7 a¢ wd Out o:u as PROJECT 2, ACCESS 3 0.9 1 � SITE N Mp\N pk'cv" \ 0 0.8 GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY --- = FUTURE ROADWAY (% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 147 / SITE, / 02 S. A CfSSsf I i l HOM l / / i i LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY --- = FUTURE ROADWAY (% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 147 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 9: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES l SCI J—w / CITY OF LA QUINTA GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA Madison St. & 2 / SITE / ' ® =INTERSECTION ID / i �► i9 / t 1-0� ono G�<F C..... iyq NrF CESSSf / ~45 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT 3-1 1 t ONLY ACCESS I ` 1 1 u 1\� 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 1 Madison St. & 2 LEGEND: Avenue 58 ® =INTERSECTION ID Avenue 50 i �► i9 i �. ;9 t 1-0� ono --- = FUTURE ROADWAY + ~45 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT 3-1 1 t ONLY ACCESS Dy Darn 0-11t(- �- 4 Madison St. & 5 Avenue 52 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 3 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 i �► i9 i �. ;9 t 1-0� ono � } � 24y ONO f109 .� + � f0 Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 ONO f0 OHO f0 OON fp8 0� ��N �� SMO 0� 000 •• �•N► .�0 .► •► - MN X15 1-00�1 -O -ONO�OO�7 ONO�7 O0 0 •J f 0 0 7 i0 ii0i i �► f-7 38-# 19--, ' (' 58-1 '� 0-1 '� } (� 0-1 '� (' 0--1 -1 (' 0-1 57— 39—a-00 508— O.O 00~ or -e 109 OtiO 109— otio 00~ oaorn 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 4--0 Ln Ln Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 1-00 . �. f0 .J � -0 .l � X13 —12 3 } 0� 220- 4- v� Ln 10� t I� o I� Ln 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 17 148 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 ONO f109 .� + � f0 ONO f0 .� + 1. f-0 OHO f 9 . i �. �0 0-11t(- 0�-1t1- 0�'�}(� 0� OLO 0� OLO 7� SMO Monroe St. & j 14 Monroe St. & 15 Monroe St. & 1 j 16 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 50th Avenue •• �•N► .�0 .► •► - MN X15 1-00�1 -O -ONO�OO�7 ONO�7 O0 0 •J f 0 0 7 i0 ii0i i �► f-7 38-# 19--, ' (' 58-1 '� 0-1 '� } (� 0-1 '� (' 0--1 -1 (' 0-1 57— 39—a-00 508— O.O 00~ or -e 109 OtiO 109— otio 00~ oaorn 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 4--0 Ln Ln Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 1-00 . �. f0 .J � -0 .l � X13 —12 3 } 0� 220- 4- v� Ln 10� t I� o I� Ln 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 17 148 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 10: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES l SCI J -w / CITY OF LA QUINTA 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Club at Coral Mountain GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA r SITE ' r i CotF�o r L r r r I I u � Madison St. & 1 Madison St. & 2 LEGEND: 21 Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 ® =INTERSECTION ID i �. 25 Avenue 60 OM2 0� � } 2 - - — = FUTURE ROADWAY + —16 X128 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 ONLY ACCESS 13-1 1 t . �. f0 0� Mr• 4 Madison St. & 5 Avenue 52 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Club at Coral Mountain GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA r SITE ' r i CotF�o r L r r r I I u � Madison St. & 3 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 21 Project Access 2 & 1� 020 f -Clio 25 i �. 25 Avenue 60 OM2 0� � } 2 Project Access 3 J-- o.Roo f112 68y 10 Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 O.RoO f� Oa0 f� 0' X25�0�0 0-11 f 1- � '1 ? I' 0-11 f f 2 � ^M� 2 � ANO 0� 000 J �► � 0 �NO , 0 ' O ►�o 4--0�7 �8 2 ' 'RN �62 NOO q*,*ROO .1 f-0f-o�f1 T � �fof-oR I► ;21 24-# 12_� 7 f[- 41-1 -1?� 0-17 t r 0-11 f 1- 0--1-1 f 1- 0-11 f r 35� 16� 46 Noo 0 --*41- o-0 0: om 10; o- 10; om 0; oC4 17 Jackson St. & 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & 21 Project Access 2 & Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 Avenue 60 Main Access Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 J-- o.Roo f112 � oRoo f0 1� ovo 12 rn '°"'°^ •� i 1. i0 • i 1► -o i �. �0 '"' . �. f0 [. f0 .� X28 0-1 i 0-11t(- M 0�-1t1- M2 46 C4 Monroe St. & j 14 Monroe St. & 15 Monroe St. & 1 j 16 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 50th Avenue J �► � 0 �NO , 0 ' O ►�o 4--0�7 �8 2 ' 'RN �62 NOO q*,*ROO .1 f-0f-o�f1 T � �fof-oR I► ;21 24-# 12_� 7 f[- 41-1 -1?� 0-17 t r 0-11 f 1- 0--1-1 f 1- 0-11 f r 35� 16� 46 Noo 0 --*41- o-0 0: om 10; o- 10; om 0; oC4 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 Project Access 1 & 21 Project Access 2 & 22 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access Moo f47 oc' X104 rn '°"'°^ f.4 m "'"' '"' . �. f0 [. f0 .� X28 -24 i O9 } �� 207 '8i 1 11 16� 35� t N 1 ao Ln 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 18 149 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 11: EAPC (2026) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) e Q AVENUE 50 50TH AV. MAIN ACCESS AREA 17.7 17.7 13.5 POMELO � r o r AVENUE 52 44.3 18.4 14.7 14.0 vi 0 V1 C4 O a w LL AVENUE 54 0.8 15.7 9.8 7.3 ole z^ 0 CITY OF LA QUINTA AIRPORT BL. 4.9 5.9 O Q ae ni Club at Coral Mountain tA tA z 0 tA 6.3 a 6.4 AVENUE 58 6.3 r 8.3 a¢ wd Out as PROJECT 2, ACCESS 3 0.9 M IM SITE �1 Mp\N pk'cv \ "SEEI!l El" 6.2 5g 58TH AV. ------ 8.3- '1 5.9 4.0 COUNTY z SITE='r a OF RIVERSIDE Y W I, S. Access AVENUE 60 160TH AV. — 2.7 1 8.5 j 6.4 GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA LEGEND: j ® = INTERSECTION ID 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY --- = FUTURE ROADWAY (% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 19 150 SITE / o.C7 �— i 1 ,�gQa IMqCO AfSSsf I ' l HSM i / / M 1 1 1 LEGEND: j ® = INTERSECTION ID 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY --- = FUTURE ROADWAY (% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 19 150 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 12: EAPC (2026) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES l SCI J—w /I CITY OF LA QUINTA GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA Madison St. & 2 / SITE / ' ® =INTERSECTION ID / -'MLn / M.'o`n74 —81 G�<F C..... iyq NrF CESSSf / 44 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT Madison St. & Avenue 50 j 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 ONLY ACCESS I ` 1 1 u 1\� 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 1 Madison St. & 2 LEGEND: r"°o f-84 Avenue 58 ® =INTERSECTION ID X53 -'MLn --- = FUTURE ROADWAY M.'o`n74 —81 mNm i 1. ± 44 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT Madison St. & Avenue 50 j 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 ONLY ACCESS 75� ^ti^ -1} 1 7: a� 4 Madison St. & 5 Avenue 52 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 3 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 r"°o f-84 oorn X86 tmmco —221 X53 X53 -'MLn X33 19--'o } o' mNm i 1. } , 244OLE 44 mTLn Madison St. & Avenue 50 j 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access .Too 4-4 Ln Ln, 2 Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 11==-102 O° `33 0"^ —161 . - f2 .� . —0 .l X13 —174 41-1 -1 } (- 0-# 276-# 1 t741�; 1 (' 197 (' 132: o om 0— 20--* NN ,oM 7� a M Ln ^N 10� t I� 10 Ln N 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 20 151 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Pomelo X72 -'MLn X33 r --"M X488 mNm i 1. 1362 •� i �► i332 i �. X43 � i [. i-4 1 t[ MCI— -1} 1 1 t(- 1 t r 466-' ^inmM 3Lnm 72 —M '0-1 —32 .� 10 86� —30 �. N 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access .Too 4-4 Ln Ln, 2 Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 11==-102 O° `33 0"^ —161 . - f2 .� . —0 .l X13 —174 41-1 -1 } (- 0-# 276-# 1 t741�; 1 (' 197 (' 132: o om 0— 20--* NN ,oM 7� a M Ln ^N 10� t I� 10 Ln N 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 20 151 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 Lnr=o X322 .00 X16 -oC')- X232 �C)rj 09 i 1, f 5 � i [. i-4 . i �. f-84 MCI— X36 1 t(- 32� '1 t[- 3 1 f 4-124 322-# —32 .� 10 86� —30 �. —33 .� . ~377 .� �. ~345 �. Monroe St. & j 14 Monroe St. & 15 Monroe St. & 1 j 16 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 50th Avenue 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access .Too 4-4 Ln Ln, 2 Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 11==-102 O° `33 0"^ —161 . - f2 .� . —0 .l X13 —174 41-1 -1 } (- 0-# 276-# 1 t741�; 1 (' 197 (' 132: o om 0— 20--* NN ,oM 7� a M Ln ^N 10� t I� 10 Ln N 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 20 151 ,or- �C)rj X167 oNM X41 MCI— X36 oM- X52 �-o X138 V21.- 4-124 —32 .� 10 .] 4 [. —30 �. —33 .� . ~377 .� �. ~345 �. -40 74-# 66— 47--' 97 142 7 t (' ^ma M 90-1 133— 62� -1 t �- o,00, rnLnv 0-17 133 19� t r o,mrn ,,,Ln 44-' 202 60� '� � (' do 0 2 -em 106 363— 54� '� � (' ov,� �� 30-J 281 44 1 1' [- ptiM mLnrn 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access .Too 4-4 Ln Ln, 2 Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 11==-102 O° `33 0"^ —161 . - f2 .� . —0 .l X13 —174 41-1 -1 } (- 0-# 276-# 1 t741�; 1 (' 197 (' 132: o om 0— 20--* NN ,oM 7� a M Ln ^N 10� t I� 10 Ln N 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 20 151 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 13: EAPC (2026) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES l SCI J—w /I CITY OF LA QUINTA 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA r SITE ' r i CotF�o r L r r r I I t u � Madison St. & 1 Madison St. & 2 LEGEND: Avenue 58 ® =INTERSECTION ID X153 + �► f- 88 ao - = FUTURE ROADWAY + —115 24--1o X138 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT 134-1 1 t [- ONLY ACCESS 136� rnN rn 8 Jefferson St. & Pomelo coTl+, X42 22: -Ln T 4 Madison St. & 5 Avenue 52 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA r SITE ' r i CotF�o r L r r r I I t u � r-rna •� i ► Madison St. & 3 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 ar`. X153 + �► f- 88 . + �. X566 1 ? (- 24--1o � —�� m m .0 329 510 nm Orrn- Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 r-rna •� i ► X70 1497 rnr-- n •� i �► X77 f--55 7 0 i �. X589 X34 X153 � � � 429-# 1 ? (- 62� 1086-'6 106--* —�� 49 1 t 231--' 24- LnLn cm 7 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 ,'7 coo X334 8 Jefferson St. & Pomelo coTl+, X42 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 '."Ln -mo 4-214 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 4-12 C,rno Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 7 oLn cmin .� i �. �0 .J � - —0 4 .1 i f-282 —260 55--' -1 t [- 0-# 203-' 277— 1 [- 274 (' 2106 ^1,— 0� 17� Lncm M 8� NM 16� r` �— �ti o 35--� tLn 1� Ln N 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 21 152 •� i► i31 0 J i 1. i9 �. X153 429-# 1 ? (- 62� -1 t � 408-1 1 t a -°o rnU" X131 v --T 'r"n X62 Prnti 'n' X66 u,ov vrnrn X66 r -o'0 °""- X124 364--*Nnr- 4_126 .J 1. 21; .� � �. —108 f-21 152 --*Mt —167 f-66 � 4 �. —121 f-77 .J 4 �. —214 f-38 .] 4 [. —445 f-68 4 [. 424 f-54 54-# 55— Monroe St. & 14 Monroe St. & j 15 Monroe St. & j 16 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 116-#-1t(' 444— 92� Avenue 52 60-11tr 516 58� 50th Avenue 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 4-12 C,rno Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 7 oLn cmin .� i �. �0 .J � - —0 4 .1 i f-282 —260 55--' -1 t [- 0-# 203-' 277— 1 [- 274 (' 2106 ^1,— 0� 17� Lncm M 8� NM 16� r` �— �ti o 35--� tLn 1� Ln N 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 21 152 .Ln M X179 a -°o rnU" X131 v --T 'r"n X62 Prnti 'n' X66 u,ov vrnrn X66 r -o'0 °""- X124 �+mr-, -rn^ 4_126 .J 1. —82 .� � �. —108 f-21 .] 4 1. —167 f-66 � 4 �. —121 f-77 .J 4 �. —214 f-38 .] 4 [. —445 f-68 4 [. 424 f-54 54-# 55— 51-#7t(' 175 157 coorn off- 99-1-1tr 180— 62--t o om v 10-11tr 111— 30� Nrn� v 89-#1t(' 291 133 a0, °OLn 116-#-1t(' 444— 92� -ecm Ln 60-11tr 516 58� N ter - 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 4-12 C,rno Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 7 oLn cmin .� i �. �0 .J � - —0 4 .1 i f-282 —260 55--' -1 t [- 0-# 203-' 277— 1 [- 274 (' 2106 ^1,— 0� 17� Lncm M 8� NM 16� r` �— �ti o 35--� tLn 1� Ln N 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 21 152 URBAN CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 22 153 Without Project With Project Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay Level of Delay Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs) Service (Secs) Service # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 - Without Improvements AWS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 1 2 1 12.7 20.8 B C 19.9 >80 C F -With Improvements TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 1 2 1 27.4 32.0 C C 27.0 32.1 C C 2 Madison St. /Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 9.6 10.9 A B 9.5 10.7 A B 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 1 79.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 1 41.2 43.6 D D 42.3 52.8 D D 4 Madison St. /Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 1 31.6 32.3 C C 32.4 33.4 C C 5 Madison St. /Avenue 50 TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 31.9 33.4 C C 32.3 33.7 C C 6 Jefferson St. /Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 0.5 1 0.5 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 40.6 >80 E F 57.6 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 0.5 1 0.5 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1> 22.7 22.5 C C 22.6 22.7 C C 7 Jefferson St. /Avenue 52 Without Improvements RDB 0.5 0.5 1» 0.5 0.5 1» 0.5 0.5 1» 0.5 0.5 1» >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F Without Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1» 0.5 1.5 1» 0.5 0.5 1» 0.5 0.5 1» 15.1 28.3 C D 17.5 34.8 C D 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 19.4 35.4 B D 19.5 35.9 B D 9 Jefferson St. /Avenue 50 - Without Improvements TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 52.4 58.8 D E 53.2 60.3 D E -With Improvements TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 51.4 51.0 D D 52.0 51.7 D D 10 Madison St. /Avenue 60 AWS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 9.4 12.8 A B 10.5 15.4 B C 11 Monroe St. /Avenue 60 - Without Improvements AWS 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 25.9 76.4 D F 32.7 >80 D F -With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 33.3 34.9 C C 34.8 38.3 C D 12 Monroe St. /Avenue 58 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 52.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 23.2 33.3 C C 26.6 41.1 C D 13 Monroe St. /Airport Blvd. - Without Improvements AWS 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 1 1 0 1! 0 47.3 >80 E F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 1 1 0 1! 0 24.0 24.9 C C 24.5 26.3 C C 14 Monroe St. /Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 1! 0 >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 34.7 37.0 C D 35.2 38.0 D D 15 Monroe St. /Avenue 52 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 d >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 d 33.7 41.2 C D 34.2 45.3 C D 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1> 17.7 25.0 B C 17.9 26.0 B C 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 9.5 16.9 A C 10.1 23.4 B C 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 22 153 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right -Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free -Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement *= Left turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane ' Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), 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 10.1 analysis software. BOLD= LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop; AWS = All -Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout E.•1 UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551Excell(15455 - Report.x1sx14 -2026 LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 23 154 Without Project With Project Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay' Level of Delay' Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs) Service (Secs) Service' # Intersection Contro13 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Future Intersection 9.0 9.1 A A 19 Madison St. / Main Access TS 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Future Intersection 13.2 12.3 B B 20 Project Access 1 /Avenue 58 CSS 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1* 2 0 Future Intersection 10.1 11.1 B B 21 Project Access 2/ Avenue 58 CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 Future Intersection 9.4 10.0 A A 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Future Intersection 9.7 11.8 A B 23 Madison St. / Golf Course S. Access CSS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 Future Intersection 10.3 11.3 B B When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right -Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free -Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement *= Left turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane ' Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), 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 10.1 analysis software. BOLD= LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop; AWS = All -Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout E.•1 UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551Excell(15455 - Report.x1sx14 -2026 LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 23 154 URBAN CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 5: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Through F.1 UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 15400054551Excell[15455 - Report.x1sx]5 -2026 Segment LOS Roadway Travel Roadway Segment Designation Lanes' West of Madison Street Secondary 3 Avenue 58 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 Existing Number of Through lanes 0.21 8,300 z Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (Oct 2017) 14,000 4 4,800 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 5,900 0.42 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Secondary capacity. 14,200 0.33 5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Primary capacity. 0.42 21,000 4 F.1 UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 15400054551Excell[15455 - Report.x1sx]5 -2026 Segment LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 24 155 Without Project With Project Volume/ Volume/ Capacity Capacity Capacityz ADT' Ratio ADT' Ratio 21,000 4 5,700 0.27 6,300 0.30 28,000 5,800 0.21 8,300 0.30 14,000 4 4,800 0.34 5,900 0.42 42,600 14,200 0.33 18,100 0.42 21,000 4 6,900 0.33 8,500 0.40 31,950 ' 12,000 0.38 13,400 0.42 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 24 155 URBAN CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 6: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) CONDITIONS Queue length calculated using SimTraffic. Z Existing Storage Length= 100 ;Proposed Storage Length= 100 3 NOM = Nominal, less than 5 feet. RI UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551Excell[15455 - Report.xlsx]1 -LOS Summary 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 25 156 Storage 95th Percentile' EAPC (2026) Length Queue Length (ft.) ID Intersection Movement AM PM Hour Volume (ft.) AM PM 18 S. Access /Avenue 60 SBL/SBR 95 59 AM 95 >300 59 56 19 Madison St. / Main Access NBL 24 56 PM 56 150 52 76 EBL 276 203 AM 276 200 191 154 EBR 20 17 AM 20 >150 130 86 20 Project Access 1 /Avenue 58 NBL/NBR 9 38 PM 38 >50 28 55 WBL 13 28 PM 28 >50 15 30 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 NBR 4 17 PM 17 >50 22 40 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 EBR 10 35 PM 35 >50 28 46 23 Madison St. / Golf Course S. Access NBL 1 1 AM 1 140 NOM NOM EBL/EBR 2 2 AM 2 >50 15 13 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic. Z Existing Storage Length= 100 ;Proposed Storage Length= 100 3 NOM = Nominal, less than 5 feet. RI UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551Excell[15455 - Report.xlsx]1 -LOS Summary 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 25 156 CM Wave Development LLC May 26, 2023 Page 26 of 36 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT 2040 CONDITIONS Estimates of General Plan buildout with Project 2040 ADT, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 14, 15 and 16, respectively. The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions are consistent with the approved October 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 7. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions are included in Attachment 2. All intersections are anticipated to experience acceptable operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions with improvements. Table 8 provides a summary of the General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds. As shown on Table 8, the study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions. However, one roadway segment along Madison Street, between Avenue 54 and Airport Boulevard (as shown on Exhibit 13) appears to exceed the theoretical daily segment LOS thresholds. Where the peak hour roadway segment analysis indicates a deficiency (unacceptable LOS), a review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis is undertaken. Further review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis indicates that the recommended improvements at adjacent study area intersections provide an acceptable level of service. Therefore, roadway segment widening is not anticipated. A queuing analysis was performed for With Project Conditions to assess the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the Project entries. Queuing analysis findings are presented in Table 9 for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) With Project traffic conditions. Queueing analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment 2. FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION Project mitigation may include a combination of fee payments to established programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future improvements or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by development should be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the City's discretion). Table 10 shows the project fair share percentages at cumulatively impacted intersections and CIP funded locations (for EAPC 2026 and 2040 conditions). However, these percentages are an approximation only as they are intended only for discussion purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or mitigation. URBAN CROSSROADS 26 157 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 14: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) r M " AVENUE 5050res ay. MAIN ACCESS AREA 17.9 28.0 OI Q 21.0 POMELO I 1 W \\I 0 M 0 N! I 0 M 0 O H AVENUE 52 S. ACCESS AREA 33.0 30.0 26.0 24.6 z z 0 o a e �o 17.0 C M e N W LA S M W AVENUE 54 0.8 r -?/-31.0 18.0 12.0(A A;l LEGEND: j ® = INTERSECTION ID 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY --- = FUTURE ROADWAY (% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 27 158 OI Q O I 1 W \\I 0 M GOLF COURSE CITY OF LA QUINTA — S. ACCESS AREA AIRPORT BL — 17.0 19.0 / "SEE I1 o a O / Q % 12.5 SET" 58 58TH AV. °pQ� °URS I g __ 14.0 19.0 10.0 E _ COUNTY Ln o HOS' M . SITE =' OF RIVERSIDE Y N _o SEE INSET" �--- � �1 %yam � N 1 I, S. ACCESS AVENUE 60 60TH AV. ' 22.0 1 24.0 j 15.0 LEGEND: j ® = INTERSECTION ID 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY --- = FUTURE ROADWAY (% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 27 158 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 15: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 POMELO l SCI J—w / CITY OF LA QUINTA GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA Madison St. & 2 / SITE / ' ® =INTERSECTION ID / nN_rn --- = FUTURE ROADWAY ro--138 1 —188 ��' GO[Fc / I "'A SSSS l 322-1 1 t (' ONLY ACCESS 183 Madison St. & Avenue 50 I ` 1 1 u 1\� 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 1 Madison St. & 2 LEGEND: �ti Avenue 58 ® =INTERSECTION ID �. X139 nN_rn --- = FUTURE ROADWAY ro--138 1 —188 ��' i l - 1872 8 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT 322-1 1 t (' ONLY ACCESS 183 Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 38:;66 v- 4 Madison St. & 5 Avenue 52 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 3 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 �ti ti^n°oi xMCI In—"_160 T X167 �. X139 nN_rn } � 84--1 } i l - 1872 1183�� a �. f-43 r .] � [. i-4 f-2 36f-9 Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access O.aoen 4--20 Ln "'T Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access .� i I- f--15361 51 .� . —1370 .� 1358 —371 55--1 -1 t [- 1-# 276-# 1 � 543 1 (' 539 (' 539 rn0rn 661 20� N0 4� oM 7� v vo M v� v 10� t I� 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 28 159 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 rno_I_ X137 nN_rn X124 ram imm X771 i l - 1872 •� i �► i39 �. f-43 r .] � [. i-4 f-2 36f-9 5,10 � � � 1 ? [- � � � 28— mLn N 86- cmcico NCD '0- N 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access O.aoen 4--20 Ln "'T Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access .� i I- f--15361 51 .� . —1370 .� 1358 —371 55--1 -1 t [- 1-# 276-# 1 � 543 1 (' 539 (' 539 rn0rn 661 20� N0 4� oM 7� v vo M v� v 10� t I� 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 28 159 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 X �X r MSM.X385oa rnM"' .m� i 5 r .] � [. i-4 f-2 36f-9 rnMM loa-rll~544 572-# 1 ? [- 31� -1 t [- 347 1 ? 4-130 664 --*Mian ° 2; ^0 81� -0 �. � .1 i 108 .� —71 9 i i �► Monroe St. & 14 Monroe St. & 15 Monroe St. & 1 16 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 50th Avenue 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access O.aoen 4--20 Ln "'T Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access .� i I- f--15361 51 .� . —1370 .� 1358 —371 55--1 -1 t [- 1-# 276-# 1 � 543 1 (' 539 (' 539 rn0rn 661 20� N0 4� oM 7� v vo M v� v 10� t I� 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 28 159 tiM X272 rnM"' X284 LAMA X104 rnMM loa-rll~544 X235 0_^ Ln X52 N�� X178 (n�N 4-130 .J 1. —672 .J � �. —18 8 � .1 i � ~344 i �. � .1 i 108 .� —71 9 i i �► ~454 � 375-# 411— 150-# 225— 373 7 t (' arna �Ln'^ Nrn 121-# 345— 129 1 t r o m o ^^o�` ^,DN 32-' 391 97 1 t[- aaa ago r- 169-# 480— 217 1 t (' aaN r•Mrn a^ 135-# 601 213 1 t (' r --p^ cn," Nr- 30-' 760 101 1 t [- acor-- r-rno a 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access O.aoen 4--20 Ln "'T Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access .� i I- f--15361 51 .� . —1370 .� 1358 —371 55--1 -1 t [- 1-# 276-# 1 � 543 1 (' 539 (' 539 rn0rn 661 20� N0 4� oM 7� v vo M v� v 10� t I� 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 28 159 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 16: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 POMELO l SCI J—w / CITY OF LA QUINTA GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA Madison St. & 2 / SITE / ' ® =INTERSECTION ID / 84� - = FUTURE ROADWAY + -269 X138 GO[Fc / I "'A SSSS l 227-1 t2r^N i 1. 1345 0�N i 1. i9 45� aOoN o I ` 1 1 u 1\� 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 1 Madison St. & 2 LEGEND: vv X365 Avenue 58 ® =INTERSECTION ID oma. 84� - = FUTURE ROADWAY + -269 X138 �=RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT x_565 1 t ONLY ACCESS 227-1 t2r^N i 1. 1345 0�N i 1. i9 45� aOoN o 4 Madison St. & 5 Avenue 52 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 3 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 vv X365 o X470 �. X114 Pomelo � } 2 84� } 1231:; x_565 Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 X224 r~-NUNi X439 '^^�_ X1395 •� i l► 1130 .� i �► X789 X34 639 � � � i95� � � � 231-11 t NM� � N^ 2� N 10 v�M°?�o X324 ° C40 X190 0_° rO- X367 cjl— X206 °_paDr�.r X287 .0 4-132 X300 (m om -418 a^""4 -511 "fir" -491 0,^� -820 MON -1034 V 1124 -699 .� X43 .� i -412 �. X119 .� f-147 .� f-95 f-70 967-# 272-# 7 t (' 150-# 7 t (' 71-17 t (' 215-J I t (- 179 -1 t (' 59-11 t r 790- 576 NQN 512 .60 325- Nr—e 609- rnaao 647- o, -.w972 a� o 583 Nor, 99 r�ro`co 54 0^o` 205 =o`er 266 NMv 209 or-- - �O * ON N 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 0 0 X36 rn rnrn Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access .1 � I- 118 � -1963 .J � f-281 -699 78--1 -1 t (' 1-# 203-# 1 t 550 1 (' 547 (' 628 10oM 1679 17� �0 8� Cm- 16� ti Ln r- `0 Mao^ O 35--� t10 1� CG N 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 29 160 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 x_565 x_42 4_300 t2r^N i 1. 1345 0�N i 1. i9 NrV„ao . i I- X382 m ? o } - } 547- 22:; 01l L;o°' o ^vN Monroe St. & j 14 Monroe St. & 15 Monroe St. & 1 j 16 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 50th Avenue 10 v�M°?�o X324 ° C40 X190 0_° rO- X367 cjl— X206 °_paDr�.r X287 .0 4-132 X300 (m om -418 a^""4 -511 "fir" -491 0,^� -820 MON -1034 V 1124 -699 .� X43 .� i -412 �. X119 .� f-147 .� f-95 f-70 967-# 272-# 7 t (' 150-# 7 t (' 71-17 t (' 215-J I t (- 179 -1 t (' 59-11 t r 790- 576 NQN 512 .60 325- Nr—e 609- rnaao 647- o, -.w972 a� o 583 Nor, 99 r�ro`co 54 0^o` 205 =o`er 266 NMv 209 or-- - �O * ON N 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 0 0 X36 rn rnrn Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access .1 � I- 118 � -1963 .J � f-281 -699 78--1 -1 t (' 1-# 203-# 1 t 550 1 (' 547 (' 628 10oM 1679 17� �0 8� Cm- 16� ti Ln r- `0 Mao^ O 35--� t10 1� CG N 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 29 160 URBAN I CROSSROADS TABLE 7: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS # Intersection 1 Madison St. /Avenue 58 With GPCE Update Improvements With Modified GPCE Improvements 2 Madison St. /Airport Blvd. 3 Madison St. /Avenue 54 4 Madison St. /Avenue 52 5 Madison St. /Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. /Avenue 54 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 524 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo 9 Jefferson St. /Avenue 50 10 Madison St. /Avenue 60 11 Monroe St. /Avenue 60 With GPCE Update Improvements With Added GPCE Improvements 12 Monroe St. /Avenue 58 With GPCE Update Improvements With Added GPCE Improvements 13 Monroe St. /Airport Blvd. 14 Monroe St. /Avenue 54 15 Monroe St. /Avenue 52 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 19 Madison St. / Main Access 20 Project Access 1 /Avenue 58 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 23 Madison St. / Golf Course S. Access Club at Coral Mountain Intersection Approach Lanes' DelayZ Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs) Service2 Contro13 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 0 1 2 1> 41.7 70.3 D E TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 g 1 0 1 2 1> 35.3 54.9 D D TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 23.7 29.7 C C TS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1>>1 1 2 1> 44.2 53.3 D D TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 1 39.5 53.7 D D TS 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1> 37.6 54.9 D D TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2> 24.2 48.4 C D RDB 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1» 0.5 2.5 1» 0.5 2.5 1» 5.9 9.1 A A TS 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 6.4 21.4 A C TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 42.3 54.6 D D TS 0 1! 0 2 1 1> 2 2 0 1 2 1 49.6 53.1 D D TS 1 2 0 1 2 1 12 1 1 1 1> 45.7 >80 D F TS 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1> 1 2 1> 37.2 53.0 D D TS 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 50.9 76.4 D E TS 2 2 1> 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 39.5 52.2 D D TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 0 1 2 1> 34.0 45.4 C D TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 31.4 54.5 C D TS 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 39.0 54.3 D D TS 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1> 34.7 54.5 C D TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 30.7 38.0 C D CSS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 34.6 34.3 D D TS 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 9.6 11.2 A B CSS 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1* 2 0 12.7 14.4 B B CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 10.2 10.4 B B CSS 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13.7 14.6 B B CSS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 25.1 32.9 D D 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right, > = Right -Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free -Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement 1 = Improvement per City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2012) * = Left turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane z Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), 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 10.1 analysis software. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop; AWS = All -Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout 4 Since roundabout analysis in Synchro is limited to a maximum of 2 lanes per approach, traffix has been utilized at this location (similar to the City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout TIA worksheets). RI UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001- 154001154551Exce11[15455 - Report.x1sx]7 - 2040 LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 30 161 URBAN CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 8: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Through F.I UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551 Excell(15455 - Report.xlsx18 - 204OWP Segment LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 31 Capacity2 Roadway Travel Roadway Segment Designation Lanes' West of Madison Street Secondary 4 Avenue 58 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 West of Jackson Street Secondary 4 Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 Existing Number of Through lanes; 1 = City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (Oct 2017) 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. F.I UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551 Excell(15455 - Report.xlsx18 - 204OWP Segment LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 31 Capacity2 ADT' 28,000 12,500 28,000 14,000 28,000 19,000 42,600 34,000 28,000 24,000 42,600 26,000 Volume/ Capacity Ratio 0.45 0.50 0.68 0.80 0.86 0.61 162 URBAN CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 9: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Queue length calculated using SimTraffic. Z Existing Storage Length= 100 ;Proposed Storage Length= 100 3 NOM = Nominal, less than 5 feet. RI UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551ExceIV15455 - Report.xlsx]9 - Q 2040WP 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 32 163 Storage 95th Percentile' 2040 WITH PROJECT Length Queue Length (ft.) ID Intersection Movement AM PM Hour Volume (ft.) AM PM 18 S. Access /Avenue 60 SBL/SBR 96 60 AM 96 >300 217 400 WEIR 33 104 PM 104 150 NOM NOM 19 Madison St. / Main Access NBL 24 56 PM 56 150 49 126 EBL 276 203 AM 276 200 185 172 EBR 20 17 AM 20 >150 108 105 20 Project Access 1 /Avenue 58 NBL/NBR 9 38 PM 38 >50 30 51 WBL 13 28 PM 28 >50 23 32 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 NBR 4 17 PM 17 >50 18 48 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 EBR 10 35 PM 35 >50 29 50 23 Madison St. / Golf Course S. Access NBL 1 1 AM 1 140 8 NOM EBUR 2 2 AM 2 >50 8 12 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic. Z Existing Storage Length= 100 ;Proposed Storage Length= 100 3 NOM = Nominal, less than 5 feet. RI UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551ExceIV15455 - Report.xlsx]9 - Q 2040WP 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 32 163 URBAN I CROSSROADS TABLE 10: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS Club at Coral Mountain Fair Share (%) 2040 With EAPC (2026)' Project2 29% 14% 28% 2040 11% Project Only EAPC (2026) With Project # Intersection Traffic Peak Hour Traffic Peak Hour Traffic 1 Madison St. /Avenue 58 3% 2% • AM Peak Hour 454 1,559 3,278 • PM Peak Hour 620 2,178 4,748 3 Madison St. /Avenue 54 2% 3% 2% • AM Peak Hour 246 2,220 5,224 • PM Peak Hour 325 2,845 6,689 4 Madison St. /Avenue 52 6% 8% 4% • AM Peak Hour 134 14% 4,335 13% 5% N/A 3% • PM Peak Hour 175 6% 5,458 5 Madison St. /Avenue 50 2% 5% 3% • AM Peak Hour 79 1,985 4,587 • PM Peak Hour 100 2,619 6,416 6 Jefferson St. /Avenue 54 3% • AM Peak Hour 82 1,686 3,135 • PM Peak Hour 109 2,069 3,871 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 • AM Peak Hour 105 3,328 5,049 • PM Peak Hour 134 3,929 6,097 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 • AM Peak Hour 105 3,643 4,961 • PM Peak Hour 133 4,468 6,167 10 Madison St. /Avenue 60 • AM Peak Hour 165 2,875 N/A • PM Peak Hour 223 3,853 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 • AM Peak Hour 111 1,361 3,094 • PM Peak Hour 150 1,770 4,863 12 Monroe St. /Avenue 58 • AM Peak Hour 191 1,360 3,311 • PM Peak Hour 251 1,973 4,742 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. • AM Peak Hour 105 1,244 3,200 • PM Peak Hour 134 1,687 4,442 14 Monroe St. /Avenue 54 • AM Peak Hour 105 1,765 3,987 • PM Peak Hour 134 2,142 5,384 15 Monroe St. /Avenue 52 • AM Peak Hour 105 2,137 4,174 • PM Peak Hour 134 2,705 5,664 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue • AM Peak Hour 79 2,086 4,326 • PM Peak Hour 100 2,865 6,017 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue • AM Peak Hour 82 691 2,601 • PM Peak Hour 1 109 1,020 3,735 1 Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Buildout (2026) Traffic' / "EAPC (2026) Peak Hour Traffic') z Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Buildout (2026) Traffic' / "2040 With Project Peak Hour Traffic') F.. -I UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551 Excell[15455 - Reportx1sx]10- Fair Share Club at Coral Mountain Fair Share (%) 2040 With EAPC (2026)' Project2 29% 14% 28% 13% 11% 5% 11% 5% 3% N/A 3% 2% N/A 2% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 6% N/A 6% 8% 4% 8% 3% 14% 6% 13% 5% 8% 3% 8% 3% 6% 3% 6% 2% 5% 3% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 12% 3% 11% 3% 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 33 164 CM Wave Development LLC May 26, 2023 Page 34 of 36 In addition, a summary of study area improvements needed to address intersection operational deficiencies and corresponding funding sources for EAPC 2026 and General Plan Buildout conditions are summarized in Table 11. CONCLUSION The Project evaluated in this supplemental assessment does not change existing General Plan land use or zoning designations for the site, consistent with the approved Andalusia Specific Plan and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310). It consists of a commercial corner (60,000 square feet of retail), an 18 -hole golf course, and up to 750 residential units. EAPC 2026 intersection analysis results indicate that eight off-site study area intersections (as previously identified in the approved October 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis) will require installation of a traffic signal in order to maintain acceptable LOS. In addition, for Jefferson Street at Avenue 50, a second westbound through lane is necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service. EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively impacted intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 52). Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island to provide acceptable LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate. The main Project driveway is located on Madison Street south of Avenue 58. It is a full access location, serving left and right turns to and from Madison Street with traffic signal control. With the Project, the northbound left turn lane serving the main Project driveway is recommended to provide 200 feet of vehicle queuing. All intersections are anticipated to experience acceptable operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040), based upon improvements previously indicated in the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis. If you have any questions, please contact John Kain at (949) 375-2435 or Marlie Whiteman (714) 585-0574. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. k4,9okOA-W� 1 John Kain, AICP Principal URBAN CROSSROADS Marlie Whiteman, PE Senior Associate 34 165 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (Page 1 of 2) Project Buildout (2026)' 2040 Conditions' Funding ID Intersection Jurisdiction Without Project With Project Source? Without Project With Project 1 None Install TS DIF/CIP' Same Same Madison St. / Avenue 58 City of La Quinta • 2nd EBL, WBR Ovl •Same 3 • Install TS Same DIF/CIP Same Same Madison St. / Avenue 54 City of La Quinta 1 EB free RT Same WBR OVL Same City of La 4 Madison St. /Avenue 52 Quinta/ None None DIF/CIP 1 SBR Same Citvof Indin 5 city of La None None DIF/ CIP 3rd NBT Same Madison St. / Avenue 50 Quinta/ Citv of Indio WBR OVL Same 6 Install TS Same DIF/CIP Same Same Jefferson St. /Avenue 54 City of La Quinta • WBR OVL •Same •Same, 2nd WBR •Same 1 NBL, 1 NBR Same 7 2lane RDB Same DIF/CIP 3lane RDB Same Jefferson St. /Avenue 52 • 2nd NBT •Same •Same, 3rd NBT •Same City of La Quinta • 2nd SBT Same Same, 3rd SBT Same 2nd EBT, 3rd EBT Same 2nd WBT, 3rd WBT Same 9 uty of La 2nd WBT Same La Quinta Same, 2nd WBL Same Jefferson St. /Avenue 50 Quinta/ Citv of Indio CIP 2nd EBL Same 10 None None Install TS Same Madison St. /Avenue 60 1 Shared NB L/T/R Same 2nd SBL, 1 SBT, Same City of La Quinta SBR OVL 2 EBL Same 1 WBL, 2nd WBT Same 11 Monroe St. /Avenue 60 Install TS Same La Quinta Same Same CIP 2nd NBT Same City of La 2nd SBT Same Quinta/ 1 EBL, 2nd EBT, Same County of Riverside EBR OVL 1 WBL, 2nd WBT Same 1 WBR w/OVL 12 Install TS Same DIF/CIP Same Same Monroe St. /Avenue 58 1 NBL, 1 SBL, Same Same Same City of La 1 EBL, 1 WBL Same Same Same Quinta/ 2nd NBL, 2nd NBT, Same County of 1 NBRw/OVL Riverside 2nd SBL, 2nd SBT Same 2nd EBT, 2nd EBR Same 2nd WBT Same 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. City of La Install TS Same DIF/ CIP Same Same Quinta/ 2nd NBT Same County of 2nd EBT Same Riverside 1 WBL, 2nd WBT, Same 1 WBRw/OVL 14 City of La Install TS Same DIF/CIP Same Same Monroe St. /Avenue 54 Quinta/ • 1 NBL, 1 SBL, 1 WBL •Same •Same •Same County of 2nd NBT, 1 NBR Same Riverside 2nd SBT, 1 SBR Same 2nd EBL, 2nd EBT, Same 1 EBR 1 WBL, 2nd WBT, Same 1 WBR 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 35 166 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (Page 2of2) Project Buildout (2026)' 2040 Conditions' Funding ID Intersection Jurisdiction Without Project With Project Source? Without Project With Project 15 City of La • Install TS • Same DIF / CIP Same Same Monroe St. /Avenue 52 Quinta/ • 2 NBL, 1 NBT, 1 NBR •Same City of Indio/ 2nd SBL Same County of Riverside 2nd EBT Same 2nd WBR Same 16 None None 2nd NBL, 1 NBR Same Monroe St. / 50th Avenue City of Indio 2nd SBL Same 2nd EBT Same 2nd WBT Same 17 None None Install TS Same Jackson St. / 58th Avenue • 1 NBL, 2nd NBT •Same County of 1 SBL, 2nd SBT Same Riverside 1 EBL, 2nd EBT Same 1 WBL, 2nd WBT Same 18 City of La Quinta N/A Install SB CSS Project N/A Same S. Access /Avenue 60 1 shared SBL/R Same 1 shared EBL/T Same 1 shared WBT/R 1 WBT & 1 WBR 19 N/A Install TS Project N/A Install TS Madison St. /Main Access City of La Quinta 1 NBL Same 1 EBL & 1 EBR Same 20 Project Access 1 /Avenue N/A Install NB CSS Project N/A Same 58 City of La Quinta 1 shared NBL/R Same 2nd EBT 21 Project Access 2 /Avenue N/A Install NB CSS Project N/A Same 58 City of La Quinta 1 NBR Same 2nd EBT 22 Madison St. / Project N/A Install EB CSS Project N/A Same Access 3 City of La Quinta 1 shared EBR Same 2nd EBT 1 TS = Traffic Signal; RDB = Roundabout; CSS = Cross -Street Stop Control; OVL = Overlap Phase z The required signal will be installed by the Project, and reimbursement maybe provided for all but the Projects fair share by future developments, or CIP, or DIF. F.WRjobsl-15100-155001-15400t l5455tExcelt[15455 - Report.x&]I l - Imp Summory 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg W 167 URBAN CROSSROADS ATTACHMENT 1: Club at Coral Mountain EAPC (2026) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 15455-03 Club at Coral Mtn Supplemental LOS Assessment.docx 168 URBAN CROSSROADS This Page Intentionally Left Blank 15455-03 Club at Coral Mtn Supplemental LOS Assessment.docx Club at Coral Mountain 169 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Future Volume (vph) 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-1 170 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 19.9 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt tt tt Traffic Vol, veh/h 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Future Vol, veh/h 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 126 80 7 59 86 79 20 497 129 112 387 78 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 3 3 3 3 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 3 3 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 3 3 HCM Control Delay 15.6 13.9 25 18.1 HCM LOS C B C C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 56% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 27% 0% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 44% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 73% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 19 311 277 118 75 7 55 54 101 105 243 LT Vol 19 0 0 118 0 0 55 0 0 105 0 Through Vol 0 311 156 0 75 0 0 54 27 0 243 RT Vol 0 0 121 0 0 7 0 0 74 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 20 331 294 126 80 7 59 57 107 112 258 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.047 0.723 0.617 0.33 0.199 0.017 0.154 0.143 0.253 0.263 0.572 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.357 7.857 7.551 9.467 8.967 8.267 9.475 8.975 8.462 8.482 7.982 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 427 457 477 378 398 431 377 398 422 422 452 Service Time 6.134 5.634 5.328 7.261 6.761 6.061 7.267 6.767 6.254 6.26 5.76 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 0.724 0.616 0.333 0.201 0.016 0.156 0.143 0.254 0.265 0.571 HCM Control Delay 11.5 28.7 21.8 16.9 14 11.2 14 13.3 14.1 14.3 21 HCM Lane LOS B D C C B B B B B B C HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 5.7 4.1 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.5 1 1 3.5 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-2 171 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Future Volume (vph) 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 27.0 34.0 34.0 18.0 25.0 25.0 14.0 42.0 42.0 26.0 54.0 54.0 Total Split (%) 22.5% 28.3% 28.3% 15.0% 20.8% 20.8% 11.7% 35.0% 35.0% 21.7% 45.0% 45.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 06 "R'. 07 i33 i5 :t Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-3 172 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Future Volume (veh/h) 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 199 1.00 1.00 245 1.00 1.00 2114 1.00 1.00 2292 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 325 No 379 195 No 264 137 No 943 311 No 1022 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 126 80 7 59 86 79 20 497 129 112 387 78 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 153 199 168 87 245 109 49 2114 943 138 2292 1022 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.61 0.61 0.08 0.66 0.66 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 126 80 7 59 86 79 20 497 129 112 387 78 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 4.9 0.5 4.0 2.8 6.0 1.4 7.8 4.3 7.6 5.1 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 4.9 0.5 4.0 2.8 6.0 1.4 7.8 4.3 7.6 5.1 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 153 199 168 87 245 109 49 2114 943 138 2292 1022 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.40 0.04 0.68 0.35 0.72 0.41 0.24 0.14 0.81 0.17 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 325 448 379 195 591 264 137 2114 943 311 2292 1022 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.8 49.8 47.8 56.0 53.1 54.6 57.3 10.6 9.9 54.3 7.7 7.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.3 1.3 0.1 8.9 0.9 8.7 5.3 0.3 0.3 10.7 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.1 2.2 0.2 1.9 1.2 2.5 0.7 2.7 1.4 3.6 1.7 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.1 51.1 47.9 64.9 54.0 63.3 62.6 10.9 10.2 65.0 7.9 7.3 LnGrp LOS E D D E D E E B B E A A Approach Vol, veh/h 213 224 646 577 Approach Delay, s/veh 58.7 60.2 12.3 18.9 Approach LOS E E B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 77.8 10.5 17.6 7.9 84.0 15.1 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 37.5 13.5 29.5 9.5 49.5 22.5 20.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 9.6 9.8 6.0 6.9 3.4 7.1 10.6 8.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.6 0.2 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.0 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-4 173 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r A tt r tt Traffic Volume (vph) 53 84 1 603 59 128 512 Future Volume (vph) 53 84 1 603 59 128 512 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 140 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 767 818 Travel Time (s) 71.6 10.5 11.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 3 2 Detector Phase 3 3 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 11.5 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 13.0 13.0 12.0 29.0 29.0 18.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 21.7% 21.7% 20.0% 48.3% 48.3% 30.0% 58.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 45 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-5 174 #1 05 T O's 'R'. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-5 174 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Movement WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1734 r A tt r 1734 tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 53 84 1 603 59 128 512 Future Volume (veh/h) 53 84 1 603 59 128 512 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1962 1.00 1.00 2595 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 232 No 875 405 No Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61 97 693 68 147 589 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 202 180 1962 875 202 2595 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.57 0.57 0.12 0.75 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 3551 1543 1734 3551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 97 693 68 147 589 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1730 1543 1734 1730 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 3.6 6.5 1.2 4.9 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 3.6 6.5 1.2 4.9 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 202 180 1962 875 202 2595 V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.54 0.35 0.08 0.73 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 260 232 1962 875 405 2595 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.3 25.0 7.0 5.9 25.6 2.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 2.5 0.5 0.2 5.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 1.3 1.6 0.3 2.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.1 27.5 7.5 6.1 30.6 2.5 LnGrp LOS C C A A C A Approach Vol, veh/h 158 761 736 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 7.4 8.1 Approach LOS C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 38.0 49.0 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 24.5 30.5 8.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.9 8.5 5.1 5.6 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 4.0 3.6 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.5 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-6 175 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Future Volume (vph) 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 160 150 910 150 160 120 305 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 80 120 120 100 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5080 840 924 2398 Travel Time (s) 63.0 10.4 12.6 32.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-7 176 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 114 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t 0% Vii tt 0% Vii tt 0% Vii t 0% Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Future Vol, veh/h 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 21 274 462 60 248 97 353 464 56 96 342 22 Number of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Approach EB 411 0 WB 86 0 NB 20 Lane Flow Rate SB 309 211 Opposing Approach WB 183 553 EB 166 179 SB 228 136 NB 8 8 Opposing Lanes 3 8 8 3 8 8 3 8 8 3 Degree of Util (X) 1.081 Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.608 0.07 NB 1.661 0.206 EB 0.578 0.326 WB 0.442 Departure Headway (Hd) Conflicting Lanes Left 3 13.12 12.62 12.243 13.038 12.538 3 Convergence,Y/N Yes 3 Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes Conflicting Approach RighNB Yes Yes SB Yes Cap WB 319 325 EB 314 337 Conflicting Lanes Right 3 288 296 3 291 292 3 9.619 9.119 3 9.738 9.238 HCM Control Delay 253.2 10.82 10.32 28.5 10.123 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 75 0.969 0.649 33.9 0.583 1.641 HCM LOS F 0.576 0.605 D 0.784 0.466 F 111.1 64.6 D 15.6 28.9 Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnlWBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru,% 0% 100% 73% 0% 100% 17% 0% 100% 46% 0% 100% 84% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 27% 0% 0% 83% 0% 0% 54% 0% 0% 16% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 314 275 188 19 163 492 53 147 160 85 203 121 LT Vol 314 0 0 19 0 0 53 0 0 85 0 0 Through Vol 0 275 138 0 163 81 0 147 74 0 203 101 RT Vol 0 0 50 0 0 411 0 0 86 0 0 20 Lane Flow Rate 353 309 211 21 183 553 60 166 179 96 228 136 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 1.081 0.907 0.608 0.07 0.577 1.661 0.206 0.55 0.578 0.326 0.746 0.442 Departure Headway (Hd) 11.91911.41911.23212.03811.53810.953 13.12 12.62 12.243 13.038 12.538 12.423 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 307 319 325 299 314 337 275 288 296 278 291 292 Service Time 9.619 9.119 8.932 9.738 9.238 8.653 10.82 10.32 9.943 10.738 10.238 10.123 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.15 0.969 0.649 0.07 0.583 1.641 0.218 0.576 0.605 0.345 0.784 0.466 HCM Control Delay 111.1 64.6 29.9 15.6 28.9 336.5 19.2 29.7 30.4 21.9 44.5 24.6 HCM Lane LOS F F D C D F C D D C E C HCM 95th -tile Q 12.7 8.7 3.8 0.2 3.4 33.3 0.8 3.1 3.4 1.4 5.5 2.1 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-8 177 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Future Volume (vph) 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 160 150 910 150 160 120 305 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 80 120 120 100 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5080 840 924 2398 Travel Time (s) 63.0 10.4 12.6 32.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 13.0 42.0 17.0 46.0 46.0 29.0 40.0 40.0 21.0 32.0 Total Split (%) 10.8% 35.0% 14.2% 38.3% 38.3% 24.2% 33.3% 33.3% 17.5% 26.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 1 102 'R) 05 06 'R'- _ 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-9 178 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1543 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1734 t 1783 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 539 1.00 1.00 1151 1.00 1.00 1449 1.00 1.00 626 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 123 No 482 181 No 534 687 No 646 238 No 645 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 21 274 462 60 248 97 353 464 56 96 342 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 51 539 481 87 1151 513 425 1449 646 120 1194 76 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.07 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1730 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 1734 3302 211 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 21 274 462 60 248 97 353 464 56 96 179 185 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1734 1730 1783 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 15.5 35.3 4.1 6.2 5.4 12.3 10.8 2.6 6.5 8.8 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 15.5 35.3 4.1 6.2 5.4 12.3 10.8 2.6 6.5 8.8 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 51 539 481 87 1151 513 425 1449 646 120 626 645 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.51 0.96 0.69 0.22 0.19 0.83 0.32 0.09 0.80 0.29 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 123 541 482 181 1197 534 687 1449 646 238 626 645 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.2 33.8 40.6 56.0 28.8 28.5 51.2 23.4 21.0 55.0 27.3 27.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.8 0.7 29.3 9.1 0.1 0.2 4.7 0.6 0.3 11.5 1.1 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 6.3 16.4 1.9 2.4 1.9 5.3 4.3 0.9 3.2 3.7 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.0 34.5 69.9 65.2 28.9 28.7 55.8 24.0 21.3 66.5 28.4 28.4 LnGrp LOS E C E E C C E C C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 757 405 873 460 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.8 34.2 36.7 36.4 Approach LOS E C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 54.8 10.6 41.9 19.7 47.9 8.0 44.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 35.5 12.5 37.5 24.5 27.5 8.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 8.5 12.8 6.1 37.3 14.3 10.9 3.4 8.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.9 1.6 0.0 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.3 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-10 179 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 -11 � � t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 73 466 66 36 422 72 149 355 34 63 291 63 Future Volume (vph) 73 466 66 36 422 72 149 355 34 63 291 63 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 435 50 200 325 160 160 255 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 105 120 140 160 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 1169 798 1237 1379 Travel Time (s) 17.7 9.9 16.9 18.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 31.5 31.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 22.0 49.0 49.0 15.0 42.0 42.0 20.0 42.0 42.0 14.0 36.0 36.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 40.8% 40.8% 12.5% 35.0% 35.0% 16.7% 35.0% 35.0% 11.7% 30.0% 30.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 65.5 (55%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 } 01 102 0? -11,13� R' 0 5 i35 0- Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 73 466 66 36 422 72 149 355 34 63 291 63 Future Volume (veh/h) 73 466 66 36 422 72 149 355 34 63 291 63 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1526 1.00 1.00 1464 1.00 1.00 1081 1.00 1.00 1027 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 253 No 681 152 No 653 435 No 482 266 No 458 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 84 536 76 41 485 83 171 408 39 72 334 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 106 1526 681 75 1464 653 231 1081 482 178 1027 458 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 84 536 76 41 485 83 171 408 39 72 334 72 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.7 12.3 3.5 2.8 11.3 3.9 6.0 11.0 2.1 2.5 9.0 4.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 12.3 3.5 2.8 11.3 3.9 6.0 11.0 2.1 2.5 9.0 4.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 106 1526 681 75 1464 653 231 1081 482 178 1027 458 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.35 0.11 0.54 0.33 0.13 0.74 0.38 0.08 0.40 0.33 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 1526 681 152 1464 653 435 1081 482 266 1027 458 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.6 22.2 19.7 56.2 23.2 21.1 54.8 32.2 29.1 55.0 32.8 31.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.2 0.6 0.3 6.0 0.6 0.4 4.6 1.0 0.3 1.5 0.8 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.8 4.9 1.2 1.3 4.4 1.4 2.6 4.6 0.8 1.1 3.7 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.7 22.8 20.1 62.2 23.8 21.5 59.5 33.2 29.4 56.4 33.7 31.8 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E C C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 696 609 618 478 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.9 26.1 40.2 36.8 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.9 42.0 9.7 57.4 12.7 40.1 11.9 55.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 37.5 10.5 44.5 15.5 31.5 17.5 37.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.5 13.0 4.8 14.3 8.0 11.0 7.7 13.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 2.5 0.0 3.7 0.3 2.0 0.1 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.4 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 80 365 72 33 372 33 136 340 52 55 330 117 Future Volume (vph) 80 365 72 33 372 33 136 340 52 55 330 117 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 210 300 240 290 220 200 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 579 1049 1270 550 Travel Time (s) 8.8 14.3 17.3 7.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 49.0 49.0 15.0 41.0 41.0 19.0 42.0 42.0 14.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split (%) 19.2% 40.8% 40.8% 12.5% 34.2% 34.2% 15.8% 35.0% 35.0% 11.7% 30.8% 30.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 64.5 (54%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue I 1 X02 'R'- 111111 03 T 04 0 =5 41s :I Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-13 182 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 365 72 33 372 33 136 340 52 55 330 117 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 365 72 33 372 33 136 340 52 55 330 117 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1552 1.00 1.00 1481 1.00 1.00 1081 1.00 1.00 1050 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 267 No 692 152 No 661 407 No 482 266 No 468 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 372 73 34 380 34 139 347 53 56 337 119 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 104 1552 692 69 1481 661 197 1081 482 166 1050 468 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 372 73 34 380 34 139 347 53 56 337 119 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 8.0 3.3 2.3 8.5 1.5 4.9 9.2 2.9 1.9 9.0 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 8.0 3.3 2.3 8.5 1.5 4.9 9.2 2.9 1.9 9.0 7.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 104 1552 692 69 1481 661 197 1081 482 166 1050 468 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.24 0.11 0.50 0.26 0.05 0.71 0.32 0.11 0.34 0.32 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 267 1552 692 152 1481 661 407 1081 482 266 1050 468 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.6 20.4 19.1 56.5 22.0 20.1 55.5 31.5 29.4 55.1 32.3 31.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.3 0.4 0.3 5.4 0.4 0.1 4.6 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 3.2 1.2 1.1 3.3 0.6 2.1 3.8 1.1 0.8 3.7 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.9 20.8 19.5 61.9 22.5 20.2 60.1 32.3 29.8 56.3 33.1 32.9 LnGrp LOS E C B E C C E C C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 527 448 539 512 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.9 25.3 39.2 35.6 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 58.3 11.5 40.9 11.7 55.9 10.4 42.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 44.5 14.5 32.5 18.5 36.5 9.5 37.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.3 10.0 6.9 11.0 7.6 10.5 3.9 11.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 2.6 0.2 2.2 0.1 2.3 0.0 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.3 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-14 183 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t r 4M tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Future Volume (vph) 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 110 110 140 140 150 150 240 0 Storage Lanes 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 0 110 25 140 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 531 5080 436 1277 Travel Time (s) 6.6 63.0 5.4 15.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-15 184 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh57.6 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t 81% 0% + r 0% 100% 0% 0% + 88% Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Future Vol, veh/h 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 11 14 48 8 542 6 278 33 681 213 30 Number of Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 Approach EB 144 172 WB 7 18 NB 8 542 SB 341 243 Opposing Approach WB 8 8 EB 8 8 SB 8 8 NB 8 8 Opposing Lanes 3 0.362 0.424 3 0.021 0.049 3 0.019 1.193 2 0.778 0.517 Conflicting Approach Left SB 9.345 9.19 11.347 10.827 10.248 NB 8.636 7.924 EB 8.713 8.122 WB Yes Yes Conflicting Lanes Left 3 Yes Yes 2 Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes 3 387 394 Conflicting Approach RighNB 333 352 SB 416 461 WB 419 448 EB 7.045 6.89 Conflicting Lanes Right 2 8.527 7.948 3 6.357 5.644 3 6.413 5.822 3 0.372 0.437 HCM Control Delay 13.8 0.021 0.051 121.4 0.019 1.176 18 0.814 0.542 31.5 17.3 18.5 HCM LOS B 13.8 13.5 F 11.5 132.5 C 35.9 19.2 D C C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnlWBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 4% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 96% 81% 0% 100% 20% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 88% Vol Right, % 0% 19% 0% 0% 80% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 12% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 130 155 8 7 16 43 7 488 307 307 219 LT Vol 5 0 8 0 0 43 0 0 307 307 0 Through Vol 125 125 0 7 3 0 7 0 0 0 192 RT Vol 0 30 0 0 13 0 0 488 0 0 27 Lane Flow Rate 144 172 9 7 18 48 8 542 341 341 243 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.362 0.424 0.027 0.021 0.049 0.121 0.019 1.193 0.778 0.778 0.517 Departure Headway (Hd) 9.345 9.19 11.347 10.827 10.248 9.145 8.636 7.924 8.713 8.713 8.122 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 387 394 317 333 352 394 416 461 419 419 448 Service Time 7.045 6.89 9.047 8.527 7.948 6.865 6.357 5.644 6.413 6.413 5.822 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.372 0.437 0.028 0.021 0.051 0.122 0.019 1.176 0.814 0.814 0.542 HCM Control Delay 17.3 18.5 14.4 13.8 13.5 13.1 11.5 132.5 35.9 35.9 19.2 HCM Lane LOS C C B B B B B F E E C HCM 95th -tile Q 1.6 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 20.7 6.7 6.7 2.9 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-16 185 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t r 4M tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Future Volume (vph) 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 110 110 140 140 150 150 240 0 Storage Lanes 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 0 110 25 140 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 531 5080 436 1277 Travel Time (s) 6.6 63.0 5.4 15.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 4 Detector Phase 2 2 6 6 4 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 61.0 30.0 30.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 Total Split (%) 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 50.8% 25.0% 25.0% 50.8% 50.8% 50.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode C -Max C -Max None None Max Max Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 87 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated ana F'nases: b: Jetterson 5t. & Avenue 04 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-17 186 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 858 tib 1543 1386 t r 1818 4M 1752 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 353 1.00 1.00 372 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1629 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 232 No 315 333 No 1042 386 No 372 1584 No 727 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 11 14 48 8 542 6 278 33 681 213 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 232 353 315 333 372 1042 14 662 82 1584 1629 727 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.47 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow,vehlh 858 1730 1543 1386 1821 1543 65 3117 387 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 11 14 48 8 542 168 0 149 681 213 30 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 858 1730 1543 1386 1821 1543 1818 0 1752 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 0.6 0.9 3.5 0.4 21.1 9.6 0.0 8.8 16.1 4.2 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.6 0.9 4.3 0.4 21.1 9.6 0.0 8.8 16.1 4.2 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.22 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 232 353 315 333 372 1042 386 0 372 1584 1629 727 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.14 0.02 0.52 0.43 0.00 0.40 0.43 0.13 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 232 353 315 333 372 1042 386 0 372 1584 1629 727 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.7 38.2 38.3 40.1 38.2 9.8 41.0 0.0 40.7 21.1 17.9 17.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 3.5 0.0 3.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.1 0.2 16.0 4.5 0.0 4.0 6.0 1.6 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.1 38.4 38.6 40.3 38.2 10.2 44.5 0.0 43.9 21.9 18.1 17.2 LnGrp LOS D D D D D B D A D C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 34 598 317 924 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.7 12.9 44.2 20.9 Approach LOS D B D C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.0 61.0 29.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.5 56.5 24.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.4 18.1 23.1 11.6 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 3.9 0.4 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.6 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-18 187 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r r r r Traffic Volume (vph) 126 408 322 15 409 322 253 563 35 209 571 95 Future Volume (vph) 126 408 322 15 409 322 253 563 35 209 571 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 55 Link Distance (ft) 709 813 334 462 Travel Time (s) 9.7 11.1 4.6 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-19 188 HCM 6th Roundabout EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 121.9 Intersection LOS F Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 920 802 915 941 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 939 818 933 960 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 871 1032 815 742 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 726 677 642 755 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 46.2 35.7 237.5 157.0 Approach LOS E E F F Lane Left Bypass Left Bypass Left Bypass Left Bypass Designated Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R Assumed Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R RT Channelized Free Free Free Free Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway, s 4.976 353 4.976 353 4.976 39 4.976 104 Entry Flow, veh/h 586 1887 465 1887 894 1887 856 1887 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 568 0.980 482 0.980 601 0.980 647 0.980 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 346 0.981 346 0.981 38 0.980 102 Flow Entry, veh/h 574 1850 456 1850 877 1850 839 1850 Cap Entry, veh/h 556 0.187 473 0.187 589 0.021 634 0.055 V/C Ratio 1.032 0.0 0.965 0.0 1.488 0.0 1.322 0.0 Control Delay, s/veh 74.1 A 62.7 A 247.8 A 176.1 A LOS F 1 F 1 F 0 F 0 95th %tile Queue, veh 16 12 43 35 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-20 189 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r 0 r 0 r Traffic Volume (vph) 126 408 322 15 409 322 253 563 35 209 571 95 Future Volume (vph) 126 408 322 15 409 322 253 563 35 209 571 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 55 Link Distance (ft) 709 813 334 462 Travel Time (s) 9.7 11.1 4.6 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-21 190 HCM 6th Roundabout EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.5 Intersection LOS C Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 2 2 2 2 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 920 802 915 941 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 939 818 933 960 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 871 1032 815 742 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 726 677 642 755 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.5 16.7 18.0 13.6 Approach LOS C C C B Lane Left Bypass Left Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Designated Moves LT R LT R LT TR R LT TR R Assumed Moves LT R LT R LT TR R LT TR R RT Channelized Free Free Free Free Lane Util 1.000 1.000 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.535 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 Critical Headway, s 4.328 353 4.328 353 4.645 4.328 39 4.645 4.328 104 Entry Flow, veh/h 586 1887 465 1887 420 474 1887 402 454 1887 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 677 0.980 591 0.980 638 710 0.980 682 756 0.980 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 346 0.981 346 0.981 0.981 38 0.981 0.979 102 Flow Entry, veh/h 574 1850 456 1850 412 465 1850 394 445 1850 Cap Entry, veh/h 664 0.187 579 0.187 626 696 0.021 669 740 0.055 V/C Ratio 0.865 0.0 0.787 0.0 0.658 0.667 0.0 0.589 0.601 0.0 Control Delay, s/veh 34.5 A 29.3 A 19.4 18.2 A 15.8 14.9 A LOS D 1 D 1 C C 0 C B 0 95th %tile Queue, veh 10 7 5 5 4 4 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-22 191 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r ) tt ) tt Traffic Volume (vph) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 957 13 40 886 51 Future Volume (vph) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 957 13 40 886 51 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 160 0 180 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 25 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 509 561 1820 1343 Travel Time (s) 13.9 15.3 22.6 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 40.5 18.0 39.5 Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 52.0 20.0 54.0 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 15.0% 43.3% 16.7% 45.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None C -Min Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 10 (8%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo S31 t O 2 'R' C04 0 5 3,3,%'. - 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-23 192 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 30 4 r 73 4 r ) tt 1809 ) tt 1771 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 957 13 40 886 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 957 13 40 886 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 2097 1.00 1.00 2226 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 374 No 540 391 No 540 173 No 1144 202 No 1189 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 40 1 2 4 1 17 14 1029 14 43 953 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 62 1 199 55 8 199 65 3198 43 132 3229 186 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.63 0.63 0.03 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow,vehlh 24 6 1543 11 62 1543 1734 5054 69 1734 4809 277 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 0 2 5 0 17 14 675 368 43 656 352 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 30 0 1543 73 0 1543 1734 1657 1809 1734 1657 1771 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.9 11.3 11.3 2.9 19.8 19.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.4 0.0 0.1 15.3 0.0 1.2 0.9 11.3 11.3 2.9 19.8 19.8 Prop In Lane 0.98 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.16 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 63 0 199 63 0 199 65 2097 1144 132 2226 1189 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.09 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.29 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 374 0 540 391 0 540 173 2097 1144 202 2226 1189 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.7 0.0 45.6 46.6 0.0 46.1 56.1 10.2 10.2 55.5 23.0 23.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.4 3.5 0.4 0.7 2.1 0.2 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 3.6 4.0 1.3 8.7 9.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 81.2 0.0 45.7 47.7 0.0 46.5 59.6 10.6 10.9 57.6 23.3 23.5 LnGrp LOS F A D D A D E B B E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 43 22 1057 1051 Approach Delay, s/veh 79.5 46.7 11.3 24.8 Approach LOS E D B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.1 83.3 21.6 10.5 88.0 21.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 44.5 42.0 12.0 46.5 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.9 13.3 17.4 2.9 21.8 17.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 13.3 0.3 0.0 11.5 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-24 193 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r t r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Future Volume (vph) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 245 100 105 0 360 220 280 230 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 45 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 693 995 1343 697 Travel Time (s) 9.5 15.1 16.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 18.0 31.5 31.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 43.5 43.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (%) 19.2% 36.3% 36.3% 15.0% 32.1% 32.1% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Min C -Min C -Min None C -Min C -Min None None None None None None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 } 0 5 i35 i3 _ 08 'R' - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-25 194 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 t r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Future Volume (veh/h) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1091 1.00 1.00 488 1.00 1.00 1322 1.00 1.00 1324 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 246 No 487 173 No 413 173 No 424 336 No 424 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 261 312 83 86 357 237 143 821 69 157 821 369 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 246 1091 487 164 488 413 172 1322 411 335 1324 411 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 4972 1543 3365 4972 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 261 312 83 86 357 237 143 821 69 157 821 369 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1657 1543 1682 1657 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 8.1 4.7 5.7 21.4 15.9 9.8 19.1 5.0 5.3 17.4 27.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 8.1 4.7 5.7 21.4 15.9 9.8 19.1 5.0 5.3 17.4 27.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 246 1091 487 164 488 413 172 1322 411 335 1324 411 V/C Ratio(X) 1.06 0.29 0.17 0.53 0.73 0.57 0.83 0.62 0.17 0.47 0.62 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 246 1091 487 173 488 413 173 1367 424 336 1367 424 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.5 30.9 29.7 51.8 40.0 38.0 57.0 48.9 42.4 51.0 38.7 42.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 74.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 9.3 5.7 25.2 1.0 0.3 0.4 1.0 21.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.2 3.4 1.8 2.5 10.5 6.5 5.6 8.5 1.9 2.2 6.8 12.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 126.3 31.6 30.5 52.8 49.3 43.7 82.2 49.8 42.7 51.4 39.7 63.9 LnGrp LOS F C C D D D F D D D D E Approach Vol, veh/h 656 680 1033 1347 Approach Delay, s/veh 69.1 47.8 53.9 47.7 Approach LOS E D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.9 39.4 17.3 45.3 17.9 39.5 23.0 39.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 33.0 12.0 36.0 12.0 33.0 17.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.3 21.1 7.7 10.1 11.8 29.7 19.0 23.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 5.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-26 195 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Future Volume (vph) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 245 100 105 0 360 220 280 230 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 45 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 693 995 1343 697 Travel Time (s) 9.5 15.1 16.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 18.0 31.5 31.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 43.5 43.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (%) 19.2% 36.3% 36.3% 15.0% 32.1% 32.1% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Min C -Min C -Min None C -Min C -Min None None None None None None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 } 0 5 1313 i3 _ 03 'R' - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-27 196 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Future Volume (veh/h) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1091 1.00 1.00 927 1.00 1.00 1322 1.00 1.00 1324 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 246 No 487 173 No 413 173 No 424 336 No 424 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 261 312 83 86 357 237 143 821 69 157 821 369 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 246 1091 487 164 927 413 172 1322 411 335 1324 411 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 4972 1543 3365 4972 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 261 312 83 86 357 237 143 821 69 157 821 369 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1657 1543 1682 1657 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 8.1 4.7 5.7 10.1 15.9 9.8 19.1 5.0 5.3 17.4 27.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 8.1 4.7 5.7 10.1 15.9 9.8 19.1 5.0 5.3 17.4 27.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 246 1091 487 164 927 413 172 1322 411 335 1324 411 V/C Ratio(X) 1.06 0.29 0.17 0.53 0.39 0.57 0.83 0.62 0.17 0.47 0.62 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 246 1091 487 173 927 413 173 1367 424 336 1367 424 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.5 30.9 29.7 51.8 35.9 38.0 57.0 48.9 42.4 51.0 38.7 42.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 74.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 5.7 25.2 1.0 0.3 0.4 1.0 21.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.2 3.4 1.8 2.5 4.3 6.5 5.6 8.5 1.9 2.2 6.8 12.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 126.3 31.6 30.5 52.8 37.1 43.7 82.2 49.8 42.7 51.4 39.7 63.9 LnGrp LOS F C C D D D F D D D D E Approach Vol, veh/h 656 680 1033 1347 Approach Delay, s/veh 69.1 41.4 53.9 47.7 Approach LOS E D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.9 39.4 17.3 45.3 17.9 39.5 23.0 39.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 33.0 12.0 36.0 12.0 33.0 17.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.3 21.1 7.7 10.1 11.8 29.7 19.0 17.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 5.3 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.3 0.0 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.0 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-28 197 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' t r r Traffic Volume (vph) 74 66 32 185 177 78 Future Volume (vph) 74 66 32 185 177 78 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 1772 661 437 Travel Time (s) 30.2 11.3 7.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-29 198 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 10.5 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 100% 4 t r Vol Right, % r Traffic Vol, veh/h 74 66 32 185 177 78 Future Vol, veh/h 74 66 32 185 177 78 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 89 80 39 223 213 94 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 1 Approach EB 7 WB Degree of Util (X) SB 0.06 Opposing Approach WB 0.127 EB 5.586 5.586 4.88 Opposing Lanes 2 Convergence,Y/N 1 Yes 0 Yes Conflicting Approach Left SB 638 637 731 WB 727 Conflicting Lanes Left 2 3.355 0 3.865 2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Conflicting Approach Right 0.061 0.305 SB 0.129 EB 10.7 Conflicting Lanes Right 0 12.3 2 HCM Lane LOS 1 A HCM Control Delay 10.7 A 9.6 1 11.1 1.3 HCM LOS B A B Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 53% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 47% 100% 0% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 140 32 185 177 78 LT Vol 74 0 0 177 0 Through Vol 66 32 0 0 0 RT Vol 0 0 185 0 78 Lane Flow Rate 169 39 223 213 94 Geometry Grp 4 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.262 0.06 0.302 0.36 0.127 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.586 5.586 4.88 6.079 4.87 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 638 637 731 586 727 Service Time 3.663 3.355 2.648 3.865 2.656 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.265 0.061 0.305 0.363 0.129 HCM Control Delay 10.7 8.7 9.8 12.3 8.4 HCM Lane LOS B A A B A HCM 95th -tile Q 1 0.2 1.3 1.6 0.4 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-30 199 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r t r Traffic Volume (vph) 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Future Volume (vph) 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-31 200 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 32.7 Intersection LOS D Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 33% 4 r 0% +T+ 0% 5% 1� 100% 63% t r Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Future Vol, veh/h 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 52 107 156 11 95 184 144 377 21 90 198 63 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Approach EB 9.271 8.543 WB Yes Yes NB Yes Yes SB Yes Yes Opposing Approach WB 418 375 EB 405 366 SB 418 Service Time NB 6.429 7.379 Opposing Lanes 1 7.58 7.059 2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.369 3 0.421 0.379 2 0.246 0.51 Conflicting Approach Left SB 17.3 63.6 NB 16.7 31.3 EB 21.4 12.8 WB C F Conflicting Lanes Left 3 D C 2 B HCM 95th -tile Q 2 11.1 2 1 5.4 0.9 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 2 HCM Control Delay 18 31.3 51.3 18.4 HCM LOS C D F C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 33% 0% 4% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 95% 67% 0% 33% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 5% 0% 100% 63% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 131 362 144 142 263 82 180 57 LT Vol 131 0 47 0 10 82 0 0 Through Vol 0 343 97 0 86 0 180 0 RT Vol 0 19 0 142 167 0 0 57 Lane Flow Rate 144 398 158 156 289 90 198 63 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.368 0.956 0.421 0.377 0.715 0.245 0.509 0.149 Departure Headway (Hd) 9.208 8.649 9.588 8.694 8.912 9.792 9.271 8.543 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 390 418 375 412 405 366 388 418 Service Time 6.989 6.429 7.379 6.483 6.696 7.58 7.059 6.33 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.369 0.952 0.421 0.379 0.714 0.246 0.51 0.151 HCM Control Delay 17.3 63.6 19.2 16.7 31.3 15.8 21.4 12.8 HCM Lane LOS C F C C D C C B HCM 95th -tile Q 1.7 11.1 2 1.7 5.4 0.9 2.8 0.5 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-32 201 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r t r Traffic Volume (vph) 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Future Volume (vph) 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 28.0 57.0 21.0 50.0 50.0 Total Split (%) 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 23.3% 47.5% 17.5% 41.7% 41.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue 01 102 'R) 0 5 0,3,%'. 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-33 202 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1055 *' r 1495 0 0 1734 0 1804 1734 t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Future Volume (veh/h) 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1038 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 412 No 482 508 No 0 340 No 1090 238 No 880 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 107 156 11 95 184 144 377 21 90 198 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 95 175 336 36 114 207 172 1033 58 113 1038 880 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.60 0.60 0.07 0.57 0.57 Sat Flow,vehlh 252 803 1543 22 524 949 1734 1709 95 1734 1821 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 0 156 290 0 0 144 0 398 90 198 63 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1055 0 1543 1495 0 0 1734 0 1804 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 10.6 6.3 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 13.4 6.1 6.3 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.6 0.0 10.6 22.9 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 13.4 6.1 6.3 2.2 Prop In Lane 0.33 1.00 0.04 0.63 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 270 0 336 357 0 0 172 0 1090 113 1038 880 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.46 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.37 0.80 0.19 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 412 0 482 508 0 0 340 0 1090 238 1038 880 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.8 0.0 40.8 45.2 0.0 0.0 53.1 0.0 12.0 55.3 12.4 11.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.0 1.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.9 11.8 0.4 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.3 0.0 4.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 5.1 3.0 2.5 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.9 0.0 41.8 51.8 0.0 0.0 63.1 0.0 13.0 67.1 12.8 11.7 LnGrp LOS D A D D A A E A B E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 315 290 542 351 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.9 51.8 26.3 26.6 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.3 77.0 30.6 16.4 72.9 30.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 52.5 37.5 23.5 45.5 37.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 8.1 15.4 18.6 11.8 8.3 24.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 2.2 1.2 0.2 1.2 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.8 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-34 203 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r Traffic Volume (vph) 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Future Volume (vph) 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 0 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 5266 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 119.7 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-35 204 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 94.9 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 22% 28% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 4 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Future Vol, veh/h 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 107 158 74 36 87 49 60 543 58 37 339 71 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB E B WB 29.2 5.7 NB 7.5 0.5 SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1 HCM Control Delay 30.8 18.5 188.3 35 HCM LOS D C F D Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 9% 32% 21% 10% 0% Vol Thru, % 82% 47% 51% 90% 0% Vol Right, % 9% 22% 28% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 555 285 144 316 60 LT Vol 50 90 30 31 0 Through Vol 456 133 73 285 0 RT Vol 49 62 41 0 60 Lane Flow Rate 661 339 171 376 71 Geometry Grp 5 2 2 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 1.34 0.724 0.399 0.817 0.14 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.301 8.512 9.383 8.493 7.715 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 496 428 386 429 468 Service Time 5.368 6.512 7.383 6.193 5.415 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.333 0.792 0.443 0.876 0.152 HCM Control Delay 188.3 30.8 18.5 39.4 11.7 HCM Lane LOS F D C E B HCM 95th -tile Q 29.2 5.7 1.9 7.5 0.5 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-36 205 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Volume (vph) 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Future Volume (vph) 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 5266 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 119.7 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 16.0 72.0 13.0 69.0 Total Split (%) 29.2% 29.2% 29.2% 29.2% 13.3% 60.0% 10.8% 57.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases:12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 } 01 102 'R'- 3� 05 M". Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-37 206 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1253 1� 1722 1148 0 1710 1734 0 1790 1734 0 1766 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 290 No 438 205 No 435 166 No 1193 123 No 1161 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 107 158 74 36 87 49 60 543 58 37 339 71 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 196 211 99 120 197 111 87 1078 115 72 960 201 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.67 0.67 0.04 0.66 0.66 Sat Flow,vehlh 1253 1173 549 1148 1094 616 1734 1617 173 1734 1460 306 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 107 0 232 36 0 136 60 0 601 37 0 410 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1253 0 1722 1148 0 1710 1734 0 1790 1734 0 1766 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 0.0 15.3 3.7 0.0 8.5 4.1 0.0 20.2 2.5 0.0 12.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.5 0.0 15.3 19.0 0.0 8.5 4.1 0.0 20.2 2.5 0.0 12.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 196 0 309 120 0 307 87 0 1193 72 0 1161 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.00 0.75 0.30 0.00 0.44 0.69 0.00 0.50 0.52 0.00 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 290 0 438 205 0 435 166 0 1193 123 0 1161 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.1 0.0 46.7 55.7 0.0 43.9 56.0 0.0 10.0 56.3 0.0 9.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 4.4 1.4 0.0 1.0 9.1 0.0 1.5 5.6 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.2 0.0 6.7 1.1 0.0 3.7 2.0 0.0 7.1 1.2 0.0 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.5 0.0 51.1 57.1 0.0 44.9 65.2 0.0 11.6 62.0 0.0 10.0 LnGrp LOS D A D E A D E A B E A B Approach Vol, veh/h 339 172 661 447 Approach Delay, s/veh 52.1 47.4 16.4 14.3 Approach LOS D D B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.5 84.5 26.1 10.6 83.4 26.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.5 67.5 30.5 11.5 64.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.5 22.2 20.5 6.1 14.4 21.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.9 1.1 0.0 2.4 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.6 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-38 207 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Future Volume (vph) 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 280 150 150 150 105 150 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 25 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 1251 918 726 Travel Time (s) 71.6 17.1 12.5 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-39 208 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh80.2 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r 0% 54% 0% 100% 88% Vol Right, % ) tt 0% Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Future Vol, veh/h 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 156 22 39 95 42 34 551 76 84 348 15 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 Approach EB 8 8 WB Degree of Util (X) 0.076 NB 0 0.35 SB 0.415 0.19 Opposing Approach WB 0.278 Departure Headway (Hd) EB 7.366 8.712 SB 7.986 9.166 NB 8.313 8.229 Opposing Lanes 1 Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes 2 Cap 448 Conflicting Approach Left SB 0 416 NB 395 409 EB 440 Service Time WB 5.146 6.412 Conflicting Lanes Left 3 5.686 6.866 2 6.013 5.929 3 0.076 1.267 1 0.375 0.049 Conflicting Approach RighNB 0.205 0.532 SB HCM Control Delay 11.4 WB 11.4 16 EB 18.2 13.6 Conflicting Lanes Right 2 14.1 HCM Lane LOS 3 F N 1 B C 3 C B HCM Control Delay 15.4 0.2 26 18.2 1.5 0.1 157.3 0.7 2.7 16.5 HCM LOS C C F C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 88% 100% 100% 0% 54% 0% 100% 88% Vol Right, % 0% 12% 0% 0% 100% 24% 0% 0% 12% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 29 533 0 133 19 150 71 197 112 LT Vol 29 0 0 0 0 33 71 0 0 Through Vol 0 468 0 133 0 81 0 197 99 RT Vol 0 65 0 0 19 36 0 0 13 Lane Flow Rate 34 627 0 156 22 176 84 232 131 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.076 1.283 0 0.35 0.046 0.415 0.19 0.496 0.278 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.967 7.366 8.712 8.712 7.986 9.166 8.829 8.313 8.229 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 448 495 0 416 451 395 409 436 440 Service Time 5.747 5.146 6.412 6.412 5.686 6.866 6.529 6.013 5.929 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.076 1.267 0 0.375 0.049 0.446 0.205 0.532 0.298 HCM Control Delay 11.4 165.2 11.4 16 11.1 18.2 13.6 18.9 14.1 HCM Lane LOS B F N C B C B C B HCM 95th -tile Q 0.2 26 0 1.5 0.1 2 0.7 2.7 1.1 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-40 209 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Future Volume (vph) 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 280 150 150 150 105 150 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 25 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 1251 918 726 Travel Time (s) 71.6 17.1 12.5 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 12.0 71.0 19.0 78.0 78.0 Total Split (%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.0% 59.2% 15.8% 65.0% 65.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. 01 1 I Q 2 'R'- -1"04 4\ 05 7: 06 ',R- 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-41 210 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1252 t r 1263 0 0 1734 0 1782 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 294 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 2375 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 124 No 328 321 No 0 108 No 1185 210 No 1059 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 156 22 39 95 42 34 551 76 84 348 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 60 294 249 66 126 49 69 1041 144 106 2375 1059 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.06 0.69 0.69 Sat Flow,vehlh 1252 1821 1543 179 782 301 1734 1566 216 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 156 22 176 0 0 34 0 627 84 348 15 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1252 1821 1543 1263 0 0 1734 0 1782 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 9.4 1.5 7.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 21.8 5.7 4.2 0.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 9.4 1.5 17.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 21.8 5.7 4.2 0.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.22 0.24 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 294 249 241 0 0 69 0 1185 106 2375 1059 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.53 0.09 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.53 0.79 0.15 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 124 387 328 321 0 0 108 0 1185 210 2375 1059 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 46.1 42.8 49.5 0.0 0.0 56.5 0.0 10.4 55.6 6.6 6.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.4 0.1 5.7 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 1.7 12.3 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 4.2 0.5 5.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.7 2.8 1.3 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 47.5 42.9 55.1 0.0 0.0 61.9 0.0 12.1 67.9 6.7 6.0 LnGrp LOS A D D E A A E A B E A A Approach Vol, veh/h 178 176 661 447 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.0 55.1 14.7 18.2 Approach LOS D E B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.8 84.3 23.9 9.2 86.9 23.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 66.5 25.5 7.5 73.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.7 23.8 11.4 4.3 6.2 19.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 4.2 0.6 0.0 2.2 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.5 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-42 211 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� *' r Traffic Volume (vph) 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Future Volume (vph) 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 150 150 150 150 150 150 700 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 100 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 672 623 677 775 Travel Time (s) 8.3 7.7 9.2 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-43 212 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 245.8 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vol Right, % 1� 0% 23% 15% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop 4 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Future Vol, veh/h 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 54 249 74 46 330 64 132 554 37 63 440 136 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB 2.171 0.203 WB 1.566 1.696 NB HCM Control Delay 475.3 SB 61.3 153.9 Opposing Approach WB HCM Lane LOS F EB F F SB C HCM 95th -tile Q NB 0.5 7.4 Opposing Lanes 1 1.4 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 55.2 153.9 475.3 161.6 HCM LOS F F F F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 18% 100% 0% 10% 13% 0% Vol Thru, % 77% 0% 77% 75% 87% 0% Vol Right, % 5% 0% 23% 15% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 586 44 262 356 407 110 LT Vol 107 44 0 37 51 0 Through Vol 449 0 202 267 356 0 RT Vol 30 0 60 52 0 110 Lane Flow Rate 723 54 323 440 502 136 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 1.976 0.154 0.86 1.192 1.322 0.329 Departure Headway (Hd) 11.305 13.562 12.855 13.179 12.386 11.571 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 333 266 285 281 296 314 Service Time 9.305 11.262 10.555 11.179 10.086 9.271 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.171 0.203 1.133 1.566 1.696 0.433 HCM Control Delay 475.3 18.7 61.3 153.9 199.9 19.8 HCM Lane LOS F C F F F C HCM 95th -tile Q 44.2 0.5 7.4 14.8 19.2 1.4 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-44 213 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements -11 � � t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Volume (vph) 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Future Volume (vph) 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 150 150 150 150 150 150 700 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 100 25 25 25 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 672 623 677 775 Travel Time (s) 8.3 7.7 9.2 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 20.0 64.0 15.0 59.0 Total Split (%) 34.2% 34.2% 34.2% 34.2% 16.7% 53.3% 12.5% 49.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 } 01 I Q2 IF -1004 05 06 X 03 �:l Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-45 214 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 990 1� 1749 1057 0 1769 1734 0 1801 1734 0 1747 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Future Volume (veh/h) 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 157 No 532 209 No 538 224 No 1000 152 No 900 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 249 74 46 330 64 132 554 37 63 440 136 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 134 379 113 185 417 81 158 937 63 89 687 212 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.56 0.56 0.05 0.52 0.52 Sat Flow,vehlh 990 1348 401 1057 1482 287 1734 1688 113 1734 1334 412 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 0 323 46 0 394 132 0 591 63 0 576 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 990 0 1749 1057 0 1769 1734 0 1801 1734 0 1747 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.4 0.0 19.5 4.8 0.0 24.7 9.0 0.0 26.1 4.3 0.0 28.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.1 0.0 19.5 24.4 0.0 24.7 9.0 0.0 26.1 4.3 0.0 28.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.24 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 134 0 492 185 0 497 158 0 1000 89 0 900 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.00 0.66 0.25 0.00 0.79 0.83 0.00 0.59 0.71 0.00 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 157 0 532 209 0 538 224 0 1000 152 0 900 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.3 0.0 38.0 48.8 0.0 39.9 53.6 0.0 17.7 56.1 0.0 21.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 0.0 2.6 0.7 0.0 7.4 16.6 0.0 2.6 9.9 0.0 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.6 0.0 8.3 1.3 0.0 11.1 4.5 0.0 10.4 2.1 0.0 11.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.2 0.0 40.7 49.5 0.0 47.3 70.2 0.0 20.2 66.0 0.0 24.5 LnGrp LOS E A D D A D E A C E A C Approach Vol, veh/h 377 440 723 639 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.9 47.5 29.4 28.6 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.6 71.1 38.2 15.5 66.3 38.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 59.5 36.5 15.5 54.5 36.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.3 28.1 33.1 11.0 30.6 26.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.7 0.6 0.1 3.5 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.2 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-46 215 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Future Volume (vph) 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 190 200 100 50 150 150 195 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 25 90 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 817 587 676 1348 Travel Time (s) 10.1 7.3 9.2 18.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-47 216 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Intersection Intersection Delay, slvel186.8 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r 0% + r 0% 0% 100% ) t 10% Traffic Vol, veh/h 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Future Vol, veh/h 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 128 437 65 41 440 166 80 487 61 135 464 71 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 Approach EB 309 226 WB 8 8 NB 8 8 SB 8 7 Opposing Approach WB 7 Degree of Util (X) EB 0.425 1.395 SB 0.59 0.914 NB 0.394 0.861 Opposing Lanes 3 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.057 14.562 14.007 3 13.776 13.462 12.912 12.67 3 Yes Yes 1 Yes Yes Conflicting Approach Left SB Yes Yes NB Yes Cap EB 249 262 WB 248 252 Conflicting Lanes Left 3 270 284 1 Service Time 9.757 12.262 11.707 3 11.476 11.162 10.612 10.37 3 2.039 0.514 Conflicting Approach RighNB 0.238 0.758 SB 0.629 0.5 WB 0.787 HCM Control Delay EB 27.6 234.8 Conflicting Lanes Right 1 36.5 77.7 3 24.7 61.7 3 HCM Lane LOS F 3 F C HCM Control Delay 170.5 F D 53.2 F D 492.5 43 2 44.8 0.7 3.4 HCM LOS F 2.5 1.8 F 3.8 F E Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnlWBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 13% 100% 0% 0% 22% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 78% 0% 100% 0% 78% 100% 0% 0% 100% 69% Vol Right, % 10% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 31% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 521 106 363 54 156 243 138 112 257 187 LT Vol 66 106 0 0 34 0 0 112 0 0 Through Vol 404 0 363 0 122 243 0 0 257 128 RT Vol 51 0 0 54 0 0 138 0 0 59 Lane Flow Rate 628 128 437 65 188 293 166 135 309 226 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 2.011 0.425 1.395 0.195 0.59 0.914 0.486 0.394 0.861 0.615 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.057 14.562 14.007 13.23 14.686 14.563 13.776 13.462 12.912 12.67 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 308 249 262 273 248 252 264 270 284 287 Service Time 9.757 12.262 11.707 10.93 12.386 12.263 11.476 11.162 10.612 10.37 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.039 0.514 1.668 0.238 0.758 1.163 0.629 0.5 1.088 0.787 HCM Control Delay 492.5 27.6 234.8 19.1 36.5 77.7 28.8 24.7 61.7 33.7 HCM Lane LOS F D F C E F D C F D HCM 95th -tile Q 43 2 19.6 0.7 3.4 8 2.5 1.8 7.4 3.8 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-48 217 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Future Volume (vph) 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 190 200 100 50 150 150 195 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 25 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 817 587 676 1348 Travel Time (s) 10.1 7.3 9.2 18.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 21.1 42.0 42.0 11.5 32.4 32.4 66.5 66.5 66.5 66.5 Total Split (%) 17.6% 35.0% 35.0% 9.6% 27.0% 27.0% 55.4% 55.4% 55.4% 55.4% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 t0 2 'R' ? x.34 06 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-49 218 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 tt r 1612 0 0 859 t 1739 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Future Volume (veh/h) 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 477 1.00 1.00 749 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1007 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 240 No 482 101 No 359 972 No 0 428 No 1012 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 128 437 65 41 440 166 80 487 61 135 464 71 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 154 477 405 75 749 334 130 750 91 428 1752 267 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 3460 1543 166 1290 157 859 3011 458 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 128 437 65 41 440 166 628 0 0 135 266 269 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1543 1612 0 0 859 1730 1739 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 28.0 3.9 2.8 13.7 11.3 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 9.1 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 28.0 3.9 2.8 13.7 11.3 30.5 0.0 0.0 31.3 9.1 9.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.10 1.00 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 154 477 405 75 749 334 972 0 0 428 1007 1012 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.92 0.16 0.54 0.59 0.50 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.26 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 240 569 482 101 804 359 972 0 0 428 1007 1012 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.8 43.0 34.1 56.2 42.2 41.3 16.6 0.0 0.0 17.4 12.4 12.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.0 17.7 0.2 6.0 1.0 1.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.2 14.2 1.4 1.3 5.7 4.2 11.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.4 3.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.7 60.7 34.3 62.2 43.2 42.4 19.9 0.0 0.0 19.3 13.0 13.1 LnGrp LOS E E C E D D B A A B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 630 647 628 670 Approach Delay, s/veh 59.2 44.2 19.9 14.3 Approach LOS E D B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 74.3 9.7 36.0 74.3 15.2 30.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 62.0 7.0 37.5 62.0 16.6 27.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 32.5 4.8 30.0 33.3 10.7 15.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 4.4 0.0 1.5 3.8 0.1 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.2 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-50 219 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue -11 � � t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r t t Traffic Volume (vph) 30 281 44 40 383 124 30 517 53 77 463 44 Future Volume (vph) 30 281 44 40 383 124 30 517 53 77 463 44 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 210 120 220 150 200 150 170 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 710 640 1322 436 Travel Time (s) 9.7 8.7 18.0 5.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 1 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 11.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 12.0 11.5 22.0 12.0 22.5 Total Split (%) 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 20.0% 19.2% 36.7% 20.0% 37.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 1 102 'R' -1"04 5 06 'R'- i33 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-51 220 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 821 t r 1000 t r 1734 t 1763 1734 t 1766 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 281 44 40 383 124 30 517 53 77 463 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 281 44 40 383 124 30 517 53 77 463 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 580 1.00 1.00 580 1.00 1.00 661 1.00 1.00 730 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 237 No 566 335 No 719 217 No 674 231 No 745 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 331 52 47 451 146 35 608 62 91 545 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 197 580 491 287 580 645 104 1212 123 172 1346 128 Arrive On Green 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.38 0.37 0.10 0.42 0.41 Sat Flow, vehlh 821 1821 1543 1000 1821 1543 1734 3170 323 1734 3193 304 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 35 331 52 47 451 146 35 331 339 91 295 302 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 821 1821 1543 1000 1821 1543 1734 1730 1763 1734 1730 1766 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 9.1 1.4 2.5 13.5 3.7 1.2 8.8 8.8 3.0 7.1 7.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.9 9.1 1.4 11.5 13.5 3.7 1.2 8.8 8.8 3.0 7.1 7.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 197 580 491 287 580 645 104 661 674 172 730 745 V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.57 0.11 0.16 0.78 0.23 0.34 0.50 0.50 0.53 0.40 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 237 668 566 335 668 719 217 661 674 231 730 745 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.7 17.0 14.4 21.8 18.5 11.2 27.1 14.2 14.2 25.7 12.1 12.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.3 5.1 0.2 1.9 2.7 2.7 2.5 1.7 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.4 3.2 0.4 0.5 5.4 1.0 0.5 3.2 3.2 1.2 2.4 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.1 17.9 14.5 22.1 23.6 11.4 29.0 16.9 16.9 28.2 13.8 13.8 LnGrp LOS C B B C C B C B B C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 418 644 705 688 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.2 20.7 17.5 15.7 Approach LOS B C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 26.9 23.1 7.6 29.3 23.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 17.5 21.5 7.0 18.0 21.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.0 10.8 17.9 3.2 9.2 15.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 2.0 0.7 0.0 2.1 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.9 HCM 6th LOS B Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-52 221 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 41 148 12 2 102 4 6 168 3 13 168 24 Future Volume (vph) 41 148 12 2 102 4 6 168 3 13 168 24 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 5266 1079 1013 510 Travel Time (s) 71.8 14.7 12.6 6.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-53 222 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 10.1 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 3% 20% 2% 6% Vol Thru, % 95% 74% 94% 82% Vol Right, % 2% 6% Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 148 12 2 102 4 6 168 3 13 168 24 Future Vol, veh/h 41 148 12 2 102 4 6 168 3 13 168 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 44 157 13 2 109 4 6 179 3 14 179 26 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB 0.6 1.3 WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 10.4 9.4 10 10.2 HCM LOS B A A B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 3% 20% 2% 6% Vol Thru, % 95% 74% 94% 82% Vol Right, % 2% 6% 4% 12% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 177 201 108 205 LT Vol 6 41 2 13 Through Vol 168 148 102 168 RT Vol 3 12 4 24 Lane Flow Rate 188 214 115 218 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.264 0.302 0.17 0.3 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.049 5.092 5.315 4.958 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 702 697 679 715 Service Time 3.147 3.186 3.315 3.053 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.268 0.307 0.169 0.305 HCM Control Delay 10 10.4 9.4 10.2 HCM Lane LOS A B A B HCM 95th -tile Q 1.1 1.3 0.6 1.3 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-54 223 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 33 95 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 33 95 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25 Link Distance (ft) 207 1772 380 Travel Time (s) 3.5 30.2 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-55 224 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.7 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 33 95 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 33 95 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 36 103 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 36 0 - 0 18 18 Stage 1 - - - - 18 - Stage 2 - - 0 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1575 - 1000 1061 Stage 1 - - 1005 - Stage 2 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1575 - 1000 1061 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 1000 - Stage 1 - 1005 Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1575 - - 1000 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.103 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 9 HCM Lane LOS A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.3 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-56 225 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt tt Traffic Volume (vph) 276 20 24 327 316 105 Future Volume (vph) 276 20 24 327 316 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 499 880 159 Travel Time (s) 13.6 12.0 2.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 24.0 24.0 11.5 36.0 24.5 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 19.2% 60.0% 40.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 19: Madison St. & Main Access t02'R' 04 05 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-57 226 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Improvements t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 r 1734 tt tt 1670 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 276 20 24 327 316 105 Future Volume (veh/h) 276 20 24 327 316 105 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 2220 909 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 502 202 No No 878 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 300 22 26 355 343 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 361 321 71 2220 1347 441 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.64 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 1734 3551 2653 838 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 300 22 26 355 230 227 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1734 1730 1730 1670 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.9 0.7 0.9 2.5 4.4 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 0.7 0.9 2.5 4.4 4.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 361 321 71 2220 909 878 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.07 0.37 0.16 0.25 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 564 502 202 2220 909 878 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.7 19.1 28.0 4.3 7.8 7.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.0 0.1 3.1 0.2 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.4 0.7 0.4 0.5 1.3 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.8 19.2 31.1 4.4 8.5 8.5 LnGrp LOS C B C A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 322 381 457 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.1 6.3 8.5 Approach LOS C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 43.0 17.0 7.0 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 19.5 7.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.5 11.9 2.9 6.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 2.0 0.6 0.0 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.2 HCM 6th LOS B Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-58 227 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-59 228 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� tt Traffic Volume (vph) 201 4 13 161 6 3 Future Volume (vph) 201 4 13 161 6 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 50 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 403 335 383 Travel Time (s) 5.5 4.6 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-59 228 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� HCM Lane LOS ) tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - Traffic Vol, veh/h 201 4 13 161 6 3 Future Vol, veh/h 201 4 13 161 6 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 50 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 218 4 14 175 7 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 222 0 336 220 Stage 1 - - - - 220 - Stage 2 - 116 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 6.63 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.83 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 3.519 3.319 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1346 646 819 Stage 1 - 816 - Stage 2 - 897 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1346 640 819 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 678 - Stage 1 - 816 Stage 2 - 888 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 10.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 719 - 1346 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - 0.01 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 - 7.7 HCM Lane LOS B - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-60 229 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-61 230 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 197 7 0 174 0 4 Future Volume (vph) 197 7 0 174 0 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 335 276 233 Travel Time (s) 4.6 3.8 6.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-61 230 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� 0 - - tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 197 7 0 174 0 4 Future Vol, veh/h 197 7 0 174 0 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 214 8 0 189 0 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - 218 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy - - 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.319 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 821 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 821 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.4 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 821 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-62 231 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 10 0 603 411 14 Future Volume (vph) 0 10 0 603 411 14 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 210 234 288 Travel Time (s) 5.7 3.2 3.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-63 232 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 10 0 603 411 14 Future Vol, veh/h 0 10 0 603 411 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 11 0 655 447 15 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 231 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.94 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 771 0 - Stage 1 0 - 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 771 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.7 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 771 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 - HCM Lane LOS A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-64 233 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1 1 259 255 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 1 1 259 255 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 25 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 306 593 547 Travel Time (s) 8.3 10.1 9.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-65 234 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y ) tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 259 255 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 259 255 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 150 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 1 282 277 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 421 139 278 0 - 0 Stage 1 278 - - - - - Stage 2 143 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 561 884 1282 - - Stage 1 744 - - - Stage 2 869 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 560 884 1282 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 560 - - - Stage 1 743 - - - - Stage 2 869 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1282 - 686 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 - 10.3 - HCM Lane LOS A - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-66 235 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Future Volume (vph) 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-67 236 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 87.9 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt tt tt Traffic Vol, veh/h 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Future Vol, veh/h 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 146 148 24 150 125 180 16 491 92 141 711 142 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 3 3 3 3 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 3 3 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 3 3 HCM Control Delay 26.7 30.6 70.1 144.4 HCM LOS D D F F Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 64% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 19% 0% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 36% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 81% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 15 301 236 134 136 22 138 77 204 130 436 LT Vol 15 0 0 134 0 0 138 0 0 130 0 Through Vol 0 301 151 0 136 0 0 77 38 0 436 RT Vol 0 0 85 0 0 22 0 0 166 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 16 328 256 146 148 24 150 83 222 141 474 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.053 1.024 0.783 0.514 0.502 0.077 0.514 0.274 0.695 0.429 1.376 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.007 11.507 11.254 12.852 12.352 11.652 12.55 12.05 11.481 10.939 10.453 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 300 318 323 283 294 309 290 300 318 329 351 Service Time 9.707 9.207 8.954 10.552 10.052 9.352 10.25 9.75 9.181 8.697 8.197 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.053 1.031 0.793 0.516 0.503 0.078 0.517 0.277 0.698 0.429 1.35 HCM Control Delay 15.4 92.6 44.8 28.4 26.9 15.3 27.8 19.2 36.7 21.7 214.7 HCM Lane LOS C F E D D C D C E C F HCM 95th -tile Q 0.2 11.4 6.3 2.7 2.6 0.2 2.7 1.1 4.9 2.1 23.6 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-68 237 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Future Volume (vph) 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 28.0 27.0 27.0 28.0 27.0 27.0 13.0 38.0 38.0 27.0 52.0 52.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 22.5% 22.5% 23.3% 22.5% 22.5% 10.8% 31.7% 31.7% 22.5% 43.3% 43.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 05 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-69 238 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Future Volume (veh/h) 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 244 1.00 1.00 472 1.00 1.00 1784 1.00 1.00 2038 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 340 No 289 340 No 289 123 No 796 325 No 909 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 146 148 24 150 125 180 16 491 92 141 711 142 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 175 244 207 179 472 210 42 1784 796 169 2038 909 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.10 0.59 0.59 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 146 148 24 150 125 180 16 491 92 141 711 142 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.9 9.2 1.6 10.2 3.9 13.7 1.1 9.6 3.7 9.6 12.8 5.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 9.2 1.6 10.2 3.9 13.7 1.1 9.6 3.7 9.6 12.8 5.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 175 244 207 179 472 210 42 1784 796 169 2038 909 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.61 0.12 0.84 0.27 0.86 0.38 0.28 0.12 0.83 0.35 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 340 341 289 340 649 289 123 1784 796 325 2038 909 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.0 49.0 45.7 52.8 46.4 50.7 57.7 16.4 15.0 53.2 12.8 11.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.0 2.4 0.2 10.0 0.3 16.5 5.6 0.4 0.3 10.1 0.5 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.7 4.2 0.6 4.8 1.6 6.1 0.5 3.6 1.3 4.5 4.6 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.0 51.4 46.0 62.8 46.7 67.1 63.3 16.8 15.3 63.3 13.2 11.5 LnGrp LOS E D D E D E E B B E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 318 455 599 994 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.3 60.1 17.8 20.1 Approach LOS E E B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.2 66.4 16.9 20.6 7.4 75.2 16.6 20.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 33.5 23.5 22.5 8.5 47.5 23.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 11.6 11.6 12.2 11.2 3.1 14.8 11.9 15.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 3.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 5.2 0.3 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.1 HCM 6th LOS C The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-70 239 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r A tt r tt Traffic Volume (vph) 88 108 1 623 75 76 764 Future Volume (vph) 88 108 1 623 75 76 764 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 140 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 767 818 Travel Time (s) 71.6 10.5 11.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Detector Phase 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 20.5 20.5 11.5 28.0 28.0 11.5 28.0 Total Split (%) 34.2% 34.2% 19.2% 46.7% 46.7% 19.2% 46.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 28 (47%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. t0'R' 01? 7 05 'R'5 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-71 240 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Movement WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1734 r A tt r 1734 tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 88 108 1 623 75 76 764 Future Volume (veh/h) 88 108 1 623 75 76 764 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1384 1.00 1.00 2577 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 424 No 617 482 No Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 121 700 84 85 858 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 212 188 1384 617 482 2577 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.74 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 3551 1543 1734 3551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 99 121 700 84 85 858 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1730 1543 1734 1730 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 4.5 9.1 1.1 2.2 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 4.5 9.1 1.1 2.2 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 212 188 1384 617 482 2577 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.64 0.51 0.14 0.18 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 477 424 1384 617 482 2577 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.5 25.1 13.5 3.6 16.4 2.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 3.6 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.2 1.6 3.0 0.6 0.8 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.1 28.7 14.9 4.0 16.6 2.9 LnGrp LOS C C B A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 220 784 943 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.6 13.7 4.2 Approach LOS C B A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.7 28.0 48.7 11.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 23.5 23.5 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.2 11.1 7.1 6.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.6 4.9 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-72 241 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Future Volume (vph) 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 160 150 910 150 160 120 305 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 80 120 120 100 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5080 840 924 2398 Travel Time (s) 63.0 10.4 12.6 32.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-73 242 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Intersection Intersection Delay, slve250.1 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t 63% Vii tt 18% Vii tt 34% Vii t 89% Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Future Vol, veh/h 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 27 370 573 63 231 151 444 601 116 121 480 20 Number of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Approach EB 401 316 WB 246 696 NB 154 228 SB 320 180 Opposing Approach WB 8 8 EB 8 8 SB 8 8 NB 8 8 Opposing Lanes 3 1.33 1.027 3 0.89 2.403 3 0.564 0.803 3 1.162 0.65 Conflicting Approach Left SB 13.382 13.126 13.494 12.997 12.42512.452 11.952 11.489 14.521 14.021 13.942 NB Yes Yes EB Yes Yes WB Yes Yes Conflicting Lanes Left 3 Yes Yes 3 266 277 3 265 278 3 290 304 Conflicting Approach RighNB 250 262 SB 11.582 11.082 10.826 11.287 10.787 10.21110.152 WB 9.652 9.18912.221 11.721 11.642 EB 1.669 1.448 Conflicting Lanes Right 3 0.102 0.885 3 0.217 0.507 3 0.484 1.221 3 291.3 206.6 HCM Control Delay 496.8 17.8 67.5 37.4 19 29.1 210 28.9 146.2 92.3 F F HCM LOS F C F E C D F D F F 23.6 18.4 Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnlWBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th -tile Q 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 63% 0% 100% 18% 0% 100% 34% 0% 100% 89% 0% 0% 37% 0% 0% 82% 0% 0% 66% 0% 0% 11% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 395 357 281 24 219 620 56 137 203 108 285 160 395 0 0 24 0 0 56 0 0 108 0 0 0 357 178 0 219 110 0 137 69 0 285 142 0 0 103 0 0 510 0 0 134 0 0 18 444 401 316 27 246 696 63 154 228 121 320 180 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1.533 1.33 1.027 0.101 0.89 2.403 0.238 0.564 0.803 0.457 1.162 0.65 13.882 13.382 13.126 13.494 12.997 12.42512.452 11.952 11.489 14.521 14.021 13.942 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 266 277 278 265 278 299 290 304 317 250 262 261 11.582 11.082 10.826 11.287 10.787 10.21110.152 9.652 9.18912.221 11.721 11.642 1.669 1.448 1.137 0.102 0.885 2.328 0.217 0.507 0.719 0.484 1.221 0.69 291.3 206.6 100 17.8 67.5 667.3 19 29.1 48.1 28.9 146.2 39.3 F F F C F F C D E D F E 23.6 18.4 10.8 0.3 7.9 55.2 0.9 3.2 6.6 2.2 13.5 4.1 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-74 243 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Future Volume (vph) 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 160 150 910 150 160 120 305 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 80 120 120 100 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5080 840 924 2398 Travel Time (s) 63.0 10.4 12.6 32.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 11.6 44.0 14.8 47.2 47.2 28.6 40.2 40.2 21.0 32.6 Total Split (%) 9.7% 36.7% 12.3% 39.3% 39.3% 23.8% 33.5% 33.5% 17.5% 27.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 0 5 v 'R' 07 i33 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-75 244 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1543 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1734 t 1796 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 569 1.00 1.00 1196 1.00 1.00 1332 1.00 1.00 548 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 103 No 508 149 No 549 676 No 594 238 No 569 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 370 573 63 231 151 444 601 116 121 480 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 60 569 508 89 1196 534 515 1332 594 147 1072 45 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.33 0.33 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1730 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 1734 3385 141 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 370 573 63 231 151 444 601 116 121 245 255 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1734 1730 1796 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 21.9 39.5 4.3 5.6 8.5 15.5 15.5 6.0 8.2 13.5 13.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 21.9 39.5 4.3 5.6 8.5 15.5 15.5 6.0 8.2 13.5 13.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 569 508 89 1196 534 515 1332 594 147 548 569 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.65 1.13 0.71 0.19 0.28 0.86 0.45 0.20 0.82 0.45 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 103 569 508 149 1231 549 676 1332 594 238 548 569 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.84 0.84 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.8 34.3 40.3 56.1 27.5 28.5 49.6 27.5 24.6 54.0 32.6 32.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 2.2 77.1 9.9 0.1 0.3 8.9 1.1 0.7 11.3 2.6 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.8 9.0 24.8 2.0 2.2 3.0 6.9 6.3 2.2 3.9 5.8 6.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.2 36.5 117.4 66.0 27.6 28.8 58.5 28.6 25.3 65.3 35.3 35.2 LnGrp LOS E D F E C C E C C E D D Approach Vol, veh/h 970 445 1161 621 Approach Delay, s/veh 85.0 33.4 39.7 41.1 Approach LOS F C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.7 50.7 10.6 44.0 22.8 42.5 8.7 46.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 35.7 10.3 39.5 24.1 28.1 7.1 42.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 10.2 17.5 6.3 41.5 17.5 15.6 3.8 10.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.1 0.0 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.8 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-76 245 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 -11 � � t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 86 547 106 49 497 70 131 453 60 79 395 77 Future Volume (vph) 86 547 106 49 497 70 131 453 60 79 395 77 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 435 50 200 325 160 160 255 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 105 120 140 160 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 1169 798 1237 1379 Travel Time (s) 17.7 9.9 16.9 18.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 31.5 31.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 22.0 48.0 48.0 17.0 43.0 43.0 18.0 41.0 41.0 14.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 40.0% 40.0% 14.2% 35.8% 35.8% 15.0% 34.2% 34.2% 11.7% 30.8% 30.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 65.5 (55%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 }01 05 i3S �- 0.3'R' Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-77 246 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 547 106 49 497 70 131 453 60 79 395 77 Future Volume (veh/h) 86 547 106 49 497 70 131 453 60 79 395 77 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1525 1.00 1.00 1448 1.00 1.00 1052 1.00 1.00 1029 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 253 No 680 181 No 646 379 No 469 266 No 459 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 636 123 57 578 81 152 527 70 92 459 90 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 125 1525 680 86 1448 646 210 1052 469 187 1029 459 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.05 0.42 0.42 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 100 636 123 57 578 81 152 527 70 92 459 90 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 15.1 5.8 3.9 14.0 3.9 5.3 15.0 4.0 3.2 12.9 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 15.1 5.8 3.9 14.0 3.9 5.3 15.0 4.0 3.2 12.9 5.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 125 1525 680 86 1448 646 210 1052 469 187 1029 459 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.42 0.18 0.66 0.40 0.13 0.72 0.50 0.15 0.49 0.45 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 1525 680 181 1448 646 379 1052 469 266 1029 459 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.9 23.0 20.4 56.0 24.4 21.4 55.2 34.3 30.4 55.0 34.1 31.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.3 0.8 0.6 8.4 0.8 0.4 4.7 1.7 0.7 2.0 1.4 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.3 6.1 2.1 1.8 5.5 1.4 2.3 6.3 1.5 1.4 5.4 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.1 23.8 21.0 64.4 25.2 21.8 59.9 36.0 31.1 57.0 35.5 32.4 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E D C E D C Approach Vol, veh/h 859 716 749 641 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.4 27.9 40.4 38.2 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 41.0 10.5 57.4 12.0 40.2 13.1 54.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 36.5 12.5 43.5 13.5 32.5 17.5 38.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.2 17.0 5.9 17.1 7.3 14.9 8.8 16.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 3.2 0.0 4.5 0.2 2.7 0.1 3.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.4 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-78 247 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 111 498 179 55 427 77 144 521 44 73 375 115 Future Volume (vph) 111 498 179 55 427 77 144 521 44 73 375 115 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 210 300 240 290 220 200 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 579 1049 1270 550 Travel Time (s) 8.8 14.3 17.3 7.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 26.0 45.0 45.0 19.0 38.0 38.0 19.0 41.0 41.0 15.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split (%) 21.7% 37.5% 37.5% 15.8% 31.7% 31.7% 15.8% 34.2% 34.2% 12.5% 30.8% 30.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 64.5 (54%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue I 1 XO2 'R'- 03 T 04 i5 i�5'R' Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-79 248 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 111 498 179 55 427 77 144 521 44 73 375 115 Future Volume (veh/h) 111 498 179 55 427 77 144 521 44 73 375 115 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1530 1.00 1.00 1416 1.00 1.00 1052 1.00 1.00 1022 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 311 No 682 210 No 631 407 No 469 294 No 456 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 117 524 188 58 449 81 152 548 46 77 395 121 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 144 1530 682 87 1416 631 210 1052 469 181 1022 456 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.44 0.44 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 117 524 188 58 449 81 152 548 46 77 395 121 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 11.9 9.3 3.9 10.6 3.9 5.3 15.7 2.6 2.7 10.9 7.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 11.9 9.3 3.9 10.6 3.9 5.3 15.7 2.6 2.7 10.9 7.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 144 1530 682 87 1416 631 210 1052 469 181 1022 456 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.34 0.28 0.67 0.32 0.13 0.72 0.52 0.10 0.42 0.39 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 311 1530 682 210 1416 631 407 1052 469 294 1022 456 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.1 22.0 21.3 56.0 24.1 22.1 55.2 34.5 29.9 55.0 33.6 32.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.5 0.6 1.0 8.6 0.6 0.4 4.6 1.8 0.4 1.6 1.1 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.8 4.8 3.4 1.9 4.2 1.4 2.3 6.6 1.0 1.1 4.5 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.6 22.6 22.3 64.7 24.7 22.5 59.9 36.4 30.4 56.5 34.7 33.7 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E D C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 829 588 746 593 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.5 28.3 40.8 37.4 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 57.6 12.0 40.0 14.4 53.6 11.0 41.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 40.5 14.5 32.5 21.5 33.5 10.5 36.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.9 13.9 7.3 12.9 10.0 12.6 4.7 17.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 3.9 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.8 0.1 3.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.7 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-80 249 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t r 4M tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Future Volume (vph) 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 110 110 140 140 150 150 240 0 Storage Lanes 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 0 110 25 140 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 531 5080 436 1277 Travel Time (s) 6.6 63.0 5.4 15.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-81 250 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 180 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t 100% 80% + r 0% 0% 0% 99% + 0% Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Future Vol, veh/h 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 38 29 2 41 12 718 7 307 65 928 372 2 Number of Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 Approach EB 464 374 WB 8 8 NB 8 8 SB 8 8 Opposing Approach WB 8 Degree of Util (X) EB 0.607 0.127 SB 0.039 0.122 NB 1.873 1.142 Opposing Lanes 3 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.04 3 11.04 10.528 3 9.991 Convergence,Y/N 2 Yes Yes Conflicting Approach Left SB Yes Yes NB Yes Yes EB Cap 301 WB 260 270 Conflicting Lanes Left 3 342 381 2 348 367 3 9.74 9.51 11.57411.04410.895 3 8.228 7.513 Conflicting Approach RighNB 8.205 7.691 SB 0.535 0.708 WB 0.074 0.044 EB 0.035 1.885 Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1.019 HCM Control Delay 3 31.2 18.6 3 16.4 15.3 3 425.4 125.3 HCM Control Delay 17.7 HCM Lane LOS C 396.9 C C 28.4 C B 104.3 F F HCM LOS C 2.3 3.7 F 0.2 0.1 D 0.1 45.7 F 15.5 8.3 Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnlWBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 5% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 95% 70% 0% 100% 80% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 99% Vol Right, % 0% 30% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 1% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 132 179 31 16 10 34 10 589 381 381 307 LT Vol 6 0 31 0 0 34 0 0 381 381 0 Through Vol 126 126 0 16 8 0 10 0 0 0 305 RT Vol 0 53 0 0 2 0 0 589 0 0 2 Lane Flow Rate 161 218 38 20 12 41 12 718 464 464 374 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.458 0.607 0.127 0.063 0.039 0.122 0.034 1.873 1.142 1.142 0.869 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.04 11.81 13.87413.34413.195 11.04 10.528 9.813 10.505 10.505 9.991 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 301 308 260 270 273 327 342 381 348 348 367 Service Time 9.74 9.51 11.57411.04410.895 8.74 8.228 7.513 8.205 8.205 7.691 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.535 0.708 0.146 0.074 0.044 0.125 0.035 1.885 1.333 1.333 1.019 HCM Control Delay 24.5 31.2 18.6 16.9 16.4 15.3 13.6 425.4 125.3 125.3 52.3 HCM Lane LOS C D C C C C B F F F F HCM 95th -tile Q 2.3 3.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 45.7 15.5 15.5 8.3 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-82 251 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t r 4M tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Future Volume (vph) 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 110 110 140 140 150 150 240 0 Storage Lanes 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 0 110 25 140 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 531 5080 436 1277 Travel Time (s) 6.6 63.0 5.4 15.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 4 Detector Phase 2 2 6 6 4 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 66.0 27.0 27.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 Total Split (%) 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 55.0% 22.5% 22.5% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode C -Max C -Max None None Max Max Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated ana F'nases: b: Jetterson St. 6 Avenue 04 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-83 252 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 726 tib 1781 1378 t r 1818 4M 1708 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 324 1.00 1.00 341 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1773 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 192 No 334 308 No 1080 341 No 320 1724 No 791 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 38 29 2 41 12 718 7 307 65 928 372 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 192 616 42 308 341 1080 12 532 118 1724 1773 791 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.51 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow,vehlh 726 3287 224 1378 1821 1543 63 2835 628 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38 15 16 41 12 718 202 0 177 928 372 2 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 726 1730 1781 1378 1821 1543 1818 0 1708 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.4 0.9 0.9 3.0 0.6 22.5 12.2 0.0 11.3 22.3 7.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 0.9 0.9 3.9 0.6 22.5 12.2 0.0 11.3 22.3 7.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.37 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 192 324 334 308 341 1080 341 0 320 1724 1773 791 V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.04 0.66 0.59 0.00 0.55 0.54 0.21 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 192 324 334 308 341 1080 341 0 320 1724 1773 791 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.4 40.0 40.0 41.6 39.9 8.8 44.6 0.0 44.2 19.7 16.0 14.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.2 7.4 0.0 6.7 1.2 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.1 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.3 21.4 5.9 0.0 5.1 8.1 2.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.6 40.2 40.2 41.7 39.9 10.0 52.0 0.0 50.9 20.9 16.2 14.3 LnGrp LOS D D D D D A D A D C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 69 771 379 1302 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.7 12.1 51.5 19.6 Approach LOS D B D B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.0 66.0 27.0 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 61.5 22.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 8.1 24.3 24.5 14.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 6.4 0.0 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.7 HCM 6th LOS C The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-84 253 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r r r r Traffic Volume (vph) 108 429 364 31 470 334 253 727 77 200 781 155 Future Volume (vph) 108 429 364 31 470 334 253 727 77 200 781 155 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 55 Link Distance (ft) 709 813 334 462 Travel Time (s) 9.7 11.1 4.6 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-85 254 HCM 6th Roundabout EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 241.0 Intersection LOS F Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 968 897 1137 1222 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 987 915 1160 1246 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1110 1193 807 826 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 792 689 891 916 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 111.1 118.7 345.6 336.1 Approach LOS F F F F Lane Left Bypass Left Bypass Left Bypass Left Bypass Designated Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R Assumed Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R RT Channelized Free Free Free Free Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway, s 4.976 399 4.976 366 4.976 85 4.976 170 Entry Flow, veh/h 588 1887 549 1887 1075 1887 1076 1887 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 445 0.980 409 0.980 606 0.980 594 0.980 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 391 0.980 359 0.981 83 0.981 167 Flow Entry, veh/h 577 1850 538 1850 1054 1850 1055 1850 Cap Entry, veh/h 436 0.211 400 0.194 594 0.045 583 0.090 V/C Ratio 1.322 0.0 1.343 0.0 1.774 0.0 1.811 0.0 Control Delay, s/veh 186.4 A 198.0 A 372.8 A 389.3 A LOS F 1 F 1 F 0 F 0 95th %tile Queue, veh 26 25 64 65 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-86 255 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r 0 r 0 r Traffic Volume (vph) 108 429 364 31 470 334 253 727 77 200 781 155 Future Volume (vph) 108 429 364 31 470 334 253 727 77 200 781 155 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 55 Link Distance (ft) 709 813 334 462 Travel Time (s) 9.7 11.1 4.6 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-87 256 HCM 6th Roundabout EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 34.8 Intersection LOS D Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 2 2 2 2 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 968 897 1137 1222 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 987 915 1160 1246 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1110 1193 807 826 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 792 689 891 916 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.4 49.6 24.1 23.8 Approach LOS E E C C Lane Left Bypass Left Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Designated Moves LT R LT R LT TR R LT TR R Assumed Moves LT R LT R LT TR R LT TR R RT Channelized Free Free Free Free Lane Util 1.000 1.000 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.480 2.480 2.667 2.480 2.667 2.480 Critical Headway, s 4.328 399 4.328 366 4.645 4.328 85 4.645 4.328 170 Entry Flow, veh/h 588 1887 549 1887 505 570 1887 506 570 1887 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 560 0.980 522 0.980 643 726 0.980 631 715 0.980 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 391 0.980 359 0.981 0.980 83 0.980 0.981 167 Flow Entry, veh/h 577 1850 538 1850 496 559 1850 496 559 1850 Cap Entry, veh/h 550 0.211 511 0.194 630 712 0.045 619 701 0.090 V/C Ratio 1.050 0.0 1.052 0.0 0.786 0.785 0.0 0.801 0.798 0.0 Control Delay, s/veh 79.5 A 82.8 A 27.3 24.8 A 29.1 26.2 A LOS F 1 F 1 D C 0 D D 0 95th %tile Queue, veh 17 16 8 8 8 8 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-88 257 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r ) tt ) tt Traffic Volume (vph) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1184 7 23 1195 68 Future Volume (vph) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1184 7 23 1195 68 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 160 0 180 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 25 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 509 561 1820 1343 Travel Time (s) 13.9 15.3 22.6 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 40.5 18.0 39.5 Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 54.0 18.0 54.0 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 15.0% 45.0% 15.0% 45.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None C -Min Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 30 (25%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo } i31 102 R' C04 00 5 i3,3,%'. 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-89 258 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 4 r 40 4 r ) tt 1816 ) tt 1772 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1184 7 23 1195 68 Future Volume (veh/h) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1184 7 23 1195 68 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1468 1.00 1.00 1619 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 89 No 540 86 No 540 173 No 805 173 No 866 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 69 2 22 9 1 44 3 1246 7 24 1258 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 73 1 524 66 4 524 17 2260 13 96 2350 135 Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.44 0.44 0.02 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, vehlh 41 4 1543 27 13 1543 1734 5102 29 1734 4811 275 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 0 22 10 0 44 3 809 444 24 867 463 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 44 0 1543 40 0 1543 1734 1657 1816 1734 1657 1772 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.2 21.6 21.6 1.6 28.8 28.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 40.7 0.0 1.1 40.4 0.0 2.3 0.2 21.6 21.6 1.6 28.8 28.8 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.16 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 74 0 524 71 0 524 17 1468 805 96 1619 866 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.00 0.08 0.18 0.55 0.55 0.25 0.54 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 89 0 540 86 0 540 173 1468 805 173 1619 866 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.4 0.0 26.6 45.9 0.0 27.0 59.0 24.6 24.6 56.5 37.8 37.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 81.4 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.1 10.9 1.5 2.7 1.9 0.9 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.9 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.1 8.1 9.2 0.7 12.8 13.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 140.7 0.0 26.6 47.8 0.0 27.1 69.8 26.1 27.3 58.4 38.7 39.4 LnGrp LOS F A C D A C E C C E D D Approach Vol, veh/h 93 54 1256 1354 Approach Delay, s/veh 113.7 30.9 26.7 39.3 Approach LOS F C C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.6 60.0 47.4 7.1 65.5 47.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 46.5 42.0 12.0 46.5 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.6 23.6 42.7 2.2 30.8 42.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.9 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-90 259 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r t r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Future Volume (vph) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 245 100 105 0 360 220 280 230 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 45 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 693 995 1343 697 Travel Time (s) 9.5 15.1 16.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 18.0 31.5 31.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 36.5 36.5 25.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (%) 19.2% 30.4% 30.4% 20.8% 32.1% 32.1% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Min C -Min C -Min None C -Min C -Min None None None None None None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 1 1 }02 4 4'R' 03 05 i313 03 'R' ' Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-91 260 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 t r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Future Volume (veh/h) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 582 1.00 1.00 431 1.00 1.00 1295 1.00 1.00 1297 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 308 No 373 427 No 399 173 No 424 336 No 424 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 373 421 157 158 382 221 146 1079 105 312 1005 246 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 308 582 260 427 431 365 173 1295 402 336 1297 403 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 4972 1543 3365 4972 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 373 421 157 158 382 221 146 1079 105 312 1005 246 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1657 1543 1682 1657 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 21.3 13.8 8.4 9.1 24.3 11.0 10.0 25.6 3.9 11.0 22.5 10.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.3 13.8 8.4 9.1 24.3 11.0 10.0 25.6 3.9 11.0 22.5 10.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 308 582 260 427 431 365 173 1295 402 336 1297 403 V/C Ratio(X) 1.21 0.72 0.60 0.37 0.89 0.61 0.84 0.83 0.26 0.93 0.77 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 308 836 373 427 470 399 173 1367 424 336 1367 424 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.3 47.3 25.6 37.5 44.2 21.3 57.1 52.3 11.7 53.6 41.1 14.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 120.6 7.6 10.0 0.2 22.6 7.3 27.2 4.4 0.5 30.6 2.9 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 19.2 6.4 3.7 3.8 13.3 4.6 5.8 11.8 2.9 5.9 9.0 3.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 169.9 54.9 35.7 37.7 66.9 28.5 84.3 56.6 12.1 84.1 44.0 17.3 LnGrp LOS F D D D E C F E B F D B Approach Vol, veh/h 951 761 1330 1563 Approach Delay, s/veh 96.8 49.7 56.2 47.8 Approach LOS F D E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 38.8 35.5 27.7 18.0 38.8 27.3 35.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 33.0 19.0 29.0 12.0 33.0 17.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 13.0 27.6 11.1 15.8 12.0 24.5 23.3 26.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.6 0.1 4.4 0.0 5.4 0.0 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 60.6 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-92 261 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Future Volume (vph) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 245 100 105 0 360 220 280 230 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 45 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 693 995 1343 697 Travel Time (s) 9.5 15.1 16.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 18.0 31.5 31.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 36.5 36.5 25.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (%) 19.2% 30.4% 30.4% 20.8% 32.1% 32.1% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Min C -Min C -Min None C -Min C -Min None None None None None None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 1 1 }02 4 4'R' 03 05 i313 03 'R' S3' The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-93 262 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Future Volume (veh/h) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 582 1.00 1.00 566 1.00 1.00 1295 1.00 1.00 1297 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 435 No 373 427 No 399 173 No 424 336 No 424 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 373 421 157 158 382 221 146 1079 105 312 1005 246 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 435 582 260 427 566 253 173 1295 402 336 1297 403 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.17 0.17 0.25 0.16 0.16 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 4972 1543 3365 4972 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 373 421 157 158 382 221 146 1079 105 312 1005 246 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1657 1543 1682 1657 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 24.6 13.8 8.4 9.1 12.5 12.5 10.0 25.6 3.9 11.0 22.5 8.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.6 13.8 8.4 9.1 12.5 12.5 10.0 25.6 3.9 11.0 22.5 8.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 435 582 260 427 566 253 173 1295 402 336 1297 403 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.72 0.60 0.37 0.67 0.88 0.84 0.83 0.26 0.93 0.77 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 435 836 373 427 894 399 173 1367 424 336 1367 424 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.9 47.3 25.6 37.5 47.2 27.3 57.1 52.3 11.7 53.6 41.1 10.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.3 7.6 10.0 0.2 6.3 31.9 27.2 4.4 0.5 30.6 2.9 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 11.9 6.4 3.7 3.8 5.7 6.7 5.8 11.8 2.9 5.9 9.0 5.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.2 54.9 35.7 37.7 53.5 59.1 84.3 56.6 12.1 84.1 44.0 13.0 LnGrp LOS E D D D D E F E B F D B Approach Vol, veh/h 951 761 1330 1563 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.0 51.8 56.2 47.1 Approach LOS D D E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 38.8 35.5 27.7 18.0 38.8 36.1 27.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 33.0 19.0 29.0 12.0 33.0 17.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 13.0 27.6 11.1 15.8 12.0 24.5 26.6 14.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.6 0.1 4.4 0.0 5.4 0.0 5.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.7 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-94 263 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' t r r Traffic Volume (vph) 54 55 82 179 325 82 Future Volume (vph) 54 55 82 179 325 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 1772 661 437 Travel Time (s) 30.2 11.3 7.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-95 264 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 15.4 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 100% 4 t r Vol Right, % r Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 55 82 179 325 82 Future Vol, veh/h 54 55 82 179 325 82 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 66 67 100 218 396 100 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 1 Approach EB 7 WB Degree of Util (X) SB 0.174 Opposing Approach WB 0.142 EB 6.375 6.262 5.552 Opposing Lanes 2 Convergence,Y/N 1 Yes 0 Yes Conflicting Approach Left SB 564 573 646 WB 703 Conflicting Lanes Left 2 4.001 0 4.04 2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Conflicting Approach Right 0.175 0.337 SB 0.142 EB 11.4 Conflicting Lanes Right 0 22.2 2 HCM Lane LOS 1 B HCM Control Delay 11.4 A 10.8 0.9 19.5 1.5 HCM LOS B B C Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 50% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 50% 100% 0% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 109 82 179 325 82 LT Vol 54 0 0 325 0 Through Vol 55 82 0 0 0 RT Vol 0 0 179 0 82 Lane Flow Rate 133 100 218 396 100 Geometry Grp 4 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.235 0.174 0.337 0.695 0.142 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.375 6.262 5.552 6.314 5.103 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 564 573 646 575 703 Service Time 4.417 4.001 3.291 4.04 2.83 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.236 0.175 0.337 0.689 0.142 HCM Control Delay 11.4 10.3 11.1 22.2 8.7 HCM Lane LOS B B B C A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.9 0.6 1.5 5.5 0.5 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-96 265 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 1� t r Traffic Volume (vph) 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Future Volume (vph) 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-97 266 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 98.9 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 42% 4 r 0% +T+ 0% 4% 1� 100% 50% t r Traffic Vol, veh/h 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Future Vol, veh/h 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 58 199 178 24 123 149 123 375 17 232 473 61 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Approach EB 10.813 10.075 WB Yes Yes NB Yes Yes SB Yes Yes Opposing Approach WB 321 306 EB 307 320 SB 358 Service Time NB 9.078 9.677 Opposing Lanes 1 9.04 8.513 2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.406 3 0.84 0.546 2 0.725 1.391 Conflicting Approach Left SB 21.9 137.6 NB 24.5 62.4 EB 207.7 14.7 WB C F Conflicting Lanes Left 3 F E 2 B HCM 95th -tile Q 2 15.5 6.1 1 8.1 4.9 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 2 HCM Control Delay 37.5 62.4 110 140.4 HCM LOS E F F F Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 23% 0% 8% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 96% 77% 0% 42% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 4% 0% 100% 50% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 108 345 226 157 260 204 416 54 LT Vol 108 0 51 0 21 204 0 0 Through Vol 0 330 175 0 108 0 416 0 RT Vol 0 15 0 157 131 0 0 54 Lane Flow Rate 123 392 257 178 295 232 473 61 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.384 1.167 0.779 0.501 0.887 0.697 1.356 0.164 Departure Headway (Hd) 11.944 11.378 11.977 11.118 11.833 11.34 10.813 10.075 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 303 321 306 326 307 320 340 358 Service Time 9.644 9.078 9.677 8.818 9.533 9.04 8.513 7.775 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.406 1.221 0.84 0.546 0.961 0.725 1.391 0.17 HCM Control Delay 21.9 137.6 46.6 24.5 62.4 36.4 207.7 14.7 HCM Lane LOS C F E C F E F B HCM 95th -tile Q 1.7 15.5 6.1 2.7 8.1 4.9 22.4 0.6 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-98 267 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 1� t r Traffic Volume (vph) 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Future Volume (vph) 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 22.0 47.0 32.0 57.0 57.0 Total Split (%) 34.2% 34.2% 34.2% 34.2% 34.2% 18.3% 39.2% 26.7% 47.5% 47.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue 01 t Q 2 'R'• -10045 06 'R' 03 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-99 268 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1113 4 r 1118 0 0 1� 1807 1734 t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Future Volume (veh/h) 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 936 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 383 No 469 380 No 0 253 No 811 397 No 793 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 199 178 24 123 149 123 375 17 232 473 61 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 87 270 444 42 150 162 149 776 35 262 936 793 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, vehlh 175 938 1543 34 521 563 1734 1729 78 1734 1821 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 257 0 178 296 0 0 123 0 392 232 473 61 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1113 0 1543 1118 0 0 1734 0 1807 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 11.1 6.9 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 18.3 15.7 20.5 2.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.2 0.0 11.1 32.1 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 18.3 15.7 20.5 2.4 Prop In Lane 0.23 1.00 0.08 0.50 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 357 0 444 354 0 0 149 0 811 262 936 793 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.40 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.48 0.88 0.51 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 383 0 469 380 0 0 253 0 811 397 936 793 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.6 0.0 34.4 39.8 0.0 0.0 53.9 0.0 23.3 49.9 19.2 14.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.0 0.0 0.6 14.3 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 2.1 14.3 1.9 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.2 0.0 4.1 9.8 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 7.8 7.6 8.4 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.6 0.0 35.0 54.0 0.0 0.0 64.6 0.0 25.3 64.2 21.1 15.0 LnGrp LOS D A D D A A E A C E C B Approach Vol, veh/h 435 296 515 766 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.1 54.0 34.7 33.7 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.6 58.4 39.0 14.8 66.2 39.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.5 42.5 36.5 17.5 52.5 36.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 17.7 20.3 27.2 10.4 22.5 34.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.4 2.0 1.4 0.1 2.9 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.3 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-100 269 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r Traffic Volume (vph) 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Future Volume (vph) 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 0 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 5266 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 119.7 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-101 270 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 408.6 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 18% 21% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 4 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Future Vol, veh/h 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 132 240 83 88 223 83 117 624 96 71 723 152 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB F C WB 49 13.7 NB 43.3 1.7 SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1 HCM Control Delay 169.3 118 601.8 473.4 HCM LOS F F F F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 14% 29% 22% 9% 0% Vol Thru, % 75% 53% 57% 91% 0% Vol Right, % 11% 18% 21% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 628 341 295 595 114 LT Vol 88 99 66 53 0 Through Vol 468 180 167 542 0 RT Vol 72 62 62 0 114 Lane Flow Rate 837 455 393 793 152 Geometry Grp 5 2 2 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 2.253 1.21 1.043 2.154 0.381 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.786 15.574 16.582 13.548 12.753 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 293 236 224 278 284 Service Time 10.786 13.574 14.582 11.248 10.453 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.857 1.928 1.754 2.853 0.535 HCM Control Delay 601.8 169.3 118 559.7 23.1 HCM Lane LOS F F F F C HCM 95th -tile Q 49 13.7 9.8 43.3 1.7 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-102 271 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Volume (vph) 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Future Volume (vph) 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 5266 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 119.7 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 15.0 71.4 12.6 69.0 Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 12.5% 59.5% 10.5% 57.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 01 t O 2 'R'- -1"04 0 5 06 rR'? The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-103 272 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1073 1� 1741 1057 0 1736 1734 0 1778 1734 0 1766 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Future Volume (veh/h) 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 172 No 457 160 No 456 152 No 1018 117 No 960 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 132 240 83 88 223 83 117 624 96 71 723 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 172 340 117 160 332 124 141 882 136 92 793 167 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.57 0.57 0.05 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow,vehlh 1073 1293 447 1057 1265 471 1734 1541 237 1734 1459 307 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 132 0 323 88 0 306 117 0 720 71 0 875 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1073 0 1741 1057 0 1736 1734 0 1778 1734 0 1766 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.6 0.0 20.2 9.9 0.0 18.9 8.0 0.0 34.9 4.9 0.0 53.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.5 0.0 20.2 30.0 0.0 18.9 8.0 0.0 34.9 4.9 0.0 53.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 172 0 457 160 0 456 141 0 1018 92 0 960 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.55 0.00 0.67 0.83 0.00 0.71 0.77 0.00 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 172 0 457 160 0 456 152 0 1018 117 0 960 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.6 0.0 40.1 53.7 0.0 39.6 54.3 0.0 18.5 56.1 0.0 24.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.4 0.0 4.9 4.0 0.0 3.8 28.6 0.0 4.2 21.3 0.0 14.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.8 0.0 8.9 2.8 0.0 8.5 4.5 0.0 13.9 2.6 0.0 23.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.0 0.0 45.0 57.7 0.0 43.4 82.9 0.0 22.6 77.4 0.0 39.0 LnGrp LOS E A D E A D F A C E A D Approach Vol, veh/h 455 394 837 946 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.1 46.6 31.0 41.9 Approach LOS D D C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.8 73.2 36.0 14.3 69.7 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.1 66.9 31.5 10.5 64.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.9 36.9 33.5 10.0 55.8 32.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.1 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-104 273 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Future Volume (vph) 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 280 150 150 150 105 150 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 25 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 1251 918 726 Travel Time (s) 71.6 17.1 12.5 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-105 274 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Intersection Intersection Delay, slvel141.7 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r 0% 46% 0% 100% 91% Vol Right, % ) tt 0% Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Future Vol, veh/h 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 128 34 89 139 76 32 570 77 77 684 22 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 Approach EB 8 8 WB Degree of Util (X) 0.086 NB 0.032 0.333 SB 0.801 0.194 Opposing Approach WB 0.591 Departure Headway (Hd) EB 9.297 11.303 10.77110.025 10.736 10.346 SB 9.756 Convergence,Y/N NB Yes Yes Opposing Lanes 1 Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes 3 364 395 2 336 360 Conflicting Approach Left SB 349 374 NB Service Time 7.604 EB 9.003 8.471 WB 8.436 8.046 Conflicting Lanes Left 3 7.456 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2 1.638 0.034 3 0.094 0.891 1 1.219 0.672 Conflicting Approach RighNB 13.5 313 SB 18.8 13.6 WB 15.5 103.8 EB HCM Lane LOS B Conflicting Lanes Right 2 B C 3 E C 1 D HCM 95th -tile Q 3 36.4 0.1 HCM Control Delay 17.5 0.3 6.7 45.3 14.3 3.6 298.8 70.2 HCM LOS C E F F Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 29% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 88% 0% 100% 0% 46% 0% 100% 91% Vol Right, % 0% 12% 0% 0% 100% 25% 0% 0% 9% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 28 563 10 111 30 264 67 397 217 LT Vol 28 0 10 0 0 77 67 0 0 Through Vol 0 496 0 111 0 121 0 397 198 RT Vol 0 67 0 0 30 66 0 0 19 Lane Flow Rate 32 647 11 128 34 303 77 456 250 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.086 1.619 0.032 0.333 0.083 0.801 0.194 1.086 0.591 Departure Headway (Hd) 9.904 9.297 11.303 10.77110.025 10.736 10.346 9.821 9.756 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 364 395 319 336 360 340 349 374 372 Service Time 7.604 6.997 9.003 8.471 7.725 8.436 8.046 7.521 7.456 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.088 1.638 0.034 0.381 0.094 0.891 0.221 1.219 0.672 HCM Control Delay 13.5 313 14.4 18.8 13.6 45.3 15.5 103.8 25.6 HCM Lane LOS B F B C B E C F D HCM 95th -tile Q 0.3 36.4 0.1 1.4 0.3 6.7 0.7 14.3 3.6 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-106 275 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Future Volume (vph) 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 280 150 150 150 105 150 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 25 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 1251 918 726 Travel Time (s) 71.6 17.1 12.5 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 11.8 65.0 16.0 69.2 69.2 Total Split (%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 9.8% 54.2% 13.3% 57.7% 57.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. } 01 I Q2 'R'- -1004 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-107 276 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1166 t r 1370 0 0 1734 0 1783 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 443 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 2098 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 266 No 444 440 No 0 106 No 1049 166 No 936 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 128 34 89 139 76 32 570 77 77 684 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 214 443 375 122 166 83 66 924 125 98 2098 936 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.04 0.59 0.59 0.06 0.61 0.61 Sat Flow,vehlh 1166 1821 1543 343 684 342 1734 1571 212 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 128 34 304 0 0 32 0 647 77 684 22 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1166 1821 1543 1370 0 0 1734 0 1783 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 6.9 2.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 28.1 5.3 11.6 0.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 6.9 2.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 28.1 5.3 11.6 0.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.25 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 214 443 375 372 0 0 66 0 1049 98 2098 936 V/C Ratio(X) 0.05 0.29 0.09 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.62 0.79 0.33 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 266 524 444 440 0 0 106 0 1049 166 2098 936 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.0 37.0 35.2 45.3 0.0 0.0 56.5 0.0 16.0 55.9 11.6 9.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.4 0.1 10.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 2.7 13.2 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.2 3.0 0.8 9.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.9 2.6 4.1 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.1 37.3 35.3 55.4 0.0 0.0 61.9 0.0 18.7 69.1 12.0 9.5 LnGrp LOS D D D E A A E A B E B A Approach Vol, veh/h 173 304 679 783 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.8 55.4 20.7 17.6 Approach LOS D E C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 75.1 33.7 9.1 77.2 33.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 60.5 34.5 7.3 64.7 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.3 30.1 8.9 4.2 13.6 28.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 4.2 0.7 0.0 4.7 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.3 HCM 6th LOS C The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-108 277 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� 4 r Traffic Volume (vph) 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Future Volume (vph) 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 150 150 150 150 150 150 700 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 100 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 672 623 677 775 Travel Time (s) 8.3 7.7 9.2 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-109 278 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 319.1 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vol Right, % 1� 0% 31% 21% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop 4 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Future Vol, veh/h 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 98 320 146 42 235 73 89 598 43 103 558 49 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB 2.5 0.374 WB 1.537 2.275 NB HCM Control Delay 512.8 SB 163.7 100.4 Opposing Approach WB HCM Lane LOS F EB F F SB C HCM 95th -tile Q NB 1.1 15.7 Opposing Lanes 1 0.4 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 139.1 100.4 512.8 370.4 HCM LOS F F F F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 12% 100% 0% 12% 16% 0% Vol Thru, % 82% 0% 69% 67% 84% 0% Vol Right, % 6% 0% 31% 21% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 664 89 424 318 602 45 LT Vol 81 89 0 38 94 0 Through Vol 544 0 291 214 508 0 RT Vol 39 0 133 66 0 45 Lane Flow Rate 730 98 466 349 662 49 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 2.051 0.276 1.221 0.983 1.788 0.123 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.892 13.829 13.057 16.266 12.728 11.896 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 292 262 284 227 291 303 Service Time 10.892 11.529 10.757 14.266 10.428 9.596 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.5 0.374 1.641 1.537 2.275 0.162 HCM Control Delay 512.8 21.7 163.7 100.4 396.9 16.3 HCM Lane LOS F C F F F C HCM 95th -tile Q 41.8 1.1 15.7 8.8 33.5 0.4 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-110 279 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Volume (vph) 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Future Volume (vph) 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 150 150 150 150 150 150 700 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 100 25 25 25 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 672 623 677 775 Travel Time (s) 8.3 7.7 9.2 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 15.0 60.0 16.0 61.0 Total Split (%) 36.7% 36.7% 36.7% 36.7% 12.5% 50.0% 13.3% 50.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 } 01 I Q2 'R' -1004 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-111 280 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1071 1� 1724 927 0 1747 1734 0 1799 1734 0 1795 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Future Volume (veh/h) 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 256 No 567 131 No 575 152 No 895 166 No 909 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 98 320 146 42 235 73 89 598 43 103 558 49 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 243 375 171 119 422 131 111 835 60 127 836 73 Arrive On Green 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow,vehlh 1071 1184 540 927 1333 414 1734 1679 121 1734 1650 145 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 98 0 466 42 0 308 89 0 641 103 0 607 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1071 0 1724 927 0 1747 1734 0 1799 1734 0 1795 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 0.0 30.4 5.3 0.0 17.6 6.1 0.0 33.4 7.0 0.0 30.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.6 0.0 30.4 35.7 0.0 17.6 6.1 0.0 33.4 7.0 0.0 30.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 243 0 546 119 0 553 111 0 895 127 0 909 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.00 0.85 0.35 0.00 0.56 0.80 0.00 0.72 0.81 0.00 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 256 0 567 131 0 575 152 0 895 166 0 909 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.4 0.0 38.4 55.1 0.0 34.0 55.4 0.0 23.5 54.8 0.0 22.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 11.7 1.8 0.0 1.1 18.9 0.0 4.9 20.0 0.0 3.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.6 0.0 13.7 1.3 0.0 7.2 3.2 0.0 14.1 3.7 0.0 12.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.5 0.0 50.1 56.9 0.0 35.1 74.3 0.0 28.4 74.8 0.0 26.0 LnGrp LOS D A D E A D E A C E A C Approach Vol, veh/h 564 350 730 710 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.5 37.7 34.0 33.0 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 64.2 42.5 12.2 65.3 42.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 55.5 39.5 10.5 56.5 39.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 9.0 35.4 32.4 8.1 32.3 37.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.7 1.7 0.0 3.6 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.0 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-112 281 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Future Volume (vph) 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 190 200 100 50 150 150 195 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 25 90 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 817 587 676 1348 Travel Time (s) 10.1 7.3 9.2 18.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-113 282 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveB30.8 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r 0% + r 0% 0% 100% ) t 11% Traffic Vol, veh/h 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Future Vol, veh/h 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 135 516 107 79 517 144 74 628 91 149 592 113 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 Approach EB 395 310 WB 8 8 NB 8 8 SB 8 7 Opposing Approach WB 7 Degree of Util (X) EB 0.483 1.777 SB 0.844 1.143 NB 0.451 1.14 Opposing Lanes 3 Departure Headway (Hd) 13.002 16.44115.86815.06516.96216.778 3 Convergence,Y/N Yes 3 Yes Yes 1 Yes Yes Conflicting Approach Left SB Yes Yes NB 285 221 EB 241 216 WB 228 223 Conflicting Lanes Left 3 239 Service Time 1 13.66 14.024 13.456 13.166 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 3 0.611 2.224 3 1.167 1.561 Conflicting Approach RighNB 0.668 1.695 SB HCM Control Delay 841 WB 401.4 25.6 EB 150 31.1 Conflicting Lanes Right 1 145.2 72.8 3 F D 3 D F 3 D D HCM Control Delay 282.9 F HCM 95th -tile Q 100.4 2.4 27.5 841 6.4 11.7 99.1 2.2 12.1 HCM LOS F F F F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnlWBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 9% 100% 0% 0% 31% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 79% 0% 100% 0% 69% 100% 0% 0% 100% 64% Vol Right, % 11% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 36% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 682 116 444 92 216 297 124 128 339 267 LT Vol 64 116 0 0 68 0 0 128 0 0 Through Vol 540 0 444 0 148 297 0 0 339 170 RT Vol 78 0 0 92 0 0 124 0 0 97 Lane Flow Rate 793 135 516 107 252 345 144 149 395 310 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 2.79 0.483 1.777 0.347 0.844 1.143 0.45 0.451 1.14 0.874 Departure Headway (Hd) 13.002 16.44115.86815.06516.96216.778 15.96 16.324 15.756 15.466 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 285 221 232 241 216 221 228 223 233 239 Service Time 10.702 14.14113.56812.76514.66214.478 13.66 14.024 13.456 13.166 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.782 0.611 2.224 0.444 1.167 1.561 0.632 0.668 1.695 1.297 HCM Control Delay 841 33.6 401.4 25.6 72.2 150 31.1 31.8 145.2 72.8 HCM Lane LOS F D F D F F D D F F HCM 95th -tile Q 66.3 2.4 27.5 1.5 6.4 11.7 2.2 2.2 12.1 7.1 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-114 283 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 tt r 1550 0 0 728 t 1722 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Future Volume (veh/h) 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 533 1.00 1.00 890 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 929 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 192 No 451 101 No 397 865 No 0 194 No 925 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 136 522 108 80 524 146 75 635 92 151 599 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 162 533 451 100 890 397 94 676 95 194 1558 296 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 3460 1543 114 1258 178 728 2901 551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 136 522 108 80 524 146 802 0 0 151 357 356 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1543 1550 0 0 728 1730 1722 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 34.1 6.4 5.5 15.9 9.3 45.2 0.0 0.0 4.7 14.4 14.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 34.1 6.4 5.5 15.9 9.3 59.7 0.0 0.0 64.5 14.4 14.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.11 1.00 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 162 533 451 100 890 397 865 0 0 194 929 925 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.98 0.24 0.80 0.59 0.37 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.38 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 192 533 451 101 890 397 865 0 0 194 929 925 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.5 42.1 32.3 55.8 39.0 36.6 26.7 0.0 0.0 35.4 16.2 16.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.8 33.7 0.3 34.3 1.0 0.6 17.3 0.0 0.0 25.8 1.2 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.9 19.3 2.3 3.3 6.5 3.4 23.7 0.0 0.0 5.8 5.6 5.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.4 75.8 32.6 90.1 40.0 37.1 44.1 0.0 0.0 61.2 17.4 17.4 LnGrp LOS E E C F D D D A A E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 766 750 802 864 Approach Delay, s/veh 70.0 44.8 44.1 25.1 Approach LOS E D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 69.0 11.4 39.6 69.0 15.7 35.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 64.4 7.0 35.1 64.4 13.3 28.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 61.7 7.5 36.1 66.5 11.3 17.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.3 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-115 284 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 tt r 1550 0 0 728 t 1722 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Future Volume (veh/h) 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 533 1.00 1.00 890 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 929 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 192 No 451 101 No 397 865 No 0 194 No 925 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 136 522 108 80 524 146 75 635 92 151 599 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 162 533 451 100 890 397 94 676 95 194 1558 296 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 3460 1543 114 1258 178 728 2901 551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 136 522 108 80 524 146 802 0 0 151 357 356 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1543 1550 0 0 728 1730 1722 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 34.1 6.4 5.5 15.9 9.3 45.2 0.0 0.0 4.7 14.4 14.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 34.1 6.4 5.5 15.9 9.3 59.7 0.0 0.0 64.5 14.4 14.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.11 1.00 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 162 533 451 100 890 397 865 0 0 194 929 925 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.98 0.24 0.80 0.59 0.37 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.38 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 192 533 451 101 890 397 865 0 0 194 929 925 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.5 42.1 32.3 55.8 39.0 36.6 26.7 0.0 0.0 35.4 16.2 16.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.8 33.7 0.3 34.3 1.0 0.6 17.3 0.0 0.0 25.8 1.2 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.9 19.3 2.3 3.3 6.5 3.4 23.7 0.0 0.0 5.8 5.6 5.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.4 75.8 32.6 90.1 40.0 37.1 44.1 0.0 0.0 61.2 17.4 17.4 LnGrp LOS E E C F D D D A A E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 766 750 802 864 Approach Delay, s/veh 70.0 44.8 44.1 25.1 Approach LOS E D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 69.0 11.4 39.6 69.0 15.7 35.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 64.4 7.0 35.1 64.4 13.3 28.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 61.7 7.5 36.1 66.5 11.3 17.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.3 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-116 285 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r t t Traffic Volume (vph) 60 516 58 54 424 126 50 723 85 137 589 43 Future Volume (vph) 60 516 58 54 424 126 50 723 85 137 589 43 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 210 120 220 150 200 150 170 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 710 640 1322 436 Travel Time (s) 9.7 8.7 18.0 5.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 1 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 11.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 12.0 11.5 22.0 12.0 22.5 Total Split (%) 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 20.0% 19.2% 36.7% 20.0% 37.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 14.6 (24%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 1 102 'R' -1"04 i35 'R'�5 i33 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-117 286 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 810 t r 791 t r 1734 t 1755 1734 t 1778 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 516 58 54 424 126 50 723 85 137 589 43 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 516 58 54 424 126 50 723 85 137 589 43 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 668 1.00 1.00 668 1.00 1.00 547 1.00 1.00 533 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 238 No 566 180 No 747 217 No 555 231 No 548 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 67 573 64 60 471 140 56 803 94 152 654 48 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 238 668 566 180 668 747 217 986 115 203 1008 74 Arrive On Green 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.32 0.31 0.12 0.31 0.30 Sat Flow, vehlh 810 1821 1543 791 1821 1543 1734 3120 365 1734 3268 240 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 67 573 64 60 471 140 56 445 452 152 346 356 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 810 1821 1543 791 1821 1543 1734 1730 1755 1734 1730 1778 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 17.4 1.6 4.6 13.3 3.1 1.8 14.2 14.2 5.1 10.4 10.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.9 17.4 1.6 22.0 13.3 3.1 1.8 14.2 14.2 5.1 10.4 10.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.13 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 238 668 566 180 668 747 217 547 555 203 533 548 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.86 0.11 0.33 0.71 0.19 0.26 0.81 0.81 0.75 0.65 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 238 668 566 180 668 747 217 547 555 231 533 548 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.9 17.6 12.6 27.7 16.2 8.8 23.7 18.9 18.9 25.6 17.9 18.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 10.8 0.1 1.1 3.4 0.1 0.6 12.5 12.4 11.0 6.0 5.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.8 7.7 0.5 0.8 4.9 0.8 0.7 6.5 6.6 2.4 4.2 4.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.5 28.4 12.6 28.8 19.6 8.9 24.4 31.4 31.3 36.6 23.9 23.8 LnGrp LOS C C B C B A C C C D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 704 671 953 854 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 18.2 31.0 26.2 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 23.0 26.0 11.5 22.5 26.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 17.5 21.5 7.0 18.0 21.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.1 16.2 19.9 3.8 12.4 24.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.0 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-118 287 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 55 206 10 0 177 12 16 245 18 7 217 57 Future Volume (vph) 55 206 10 0 177 12 16 245 18 7 217 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 5266 1079 1013 510 Travel Time (s) 71.8 14.7 12.6 6.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-119 288 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 23.4 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6% 20% 0% 2% Vol Thru, % 88% 76% 94% 77% Vol Right, % 6% 4% Traffic Vol, veh/h 55 206 10 0 177 12 16 245 18 7 217 57 Future Vol, veh/h 55 206 10 0 177 12 16 245 18 7 217 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 70 261 13 0 224 15 20 310 23 9 275 72 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB 2.7 5.3 WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 24.8 17.9 24.8 24.4 HCM LOS C C C C Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 6% 20% 0% 2% Vol Thru, % 88% 76% 94% 77% Vol Right, % 6% 4% 6% 20% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 279 271 189 281 LT Vol 16 55 0 7 Through Vol 245 206 177 217 RT Vol 18 10 12 57 Lane Flow Rate 353 343 239 356 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.694 0.687 0.498 0.691 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.078 7.208 7.497 6.992 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 509 501 478 516 Service Time 5.153 5.282 5.582 5.065 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.694 0.685 0.5 0.69 HCM Control Delay 24.8 24.8 17.9 24.4 HCM Lane LOS C C C C HCM 95th -tile Q 5.3 5.2 2.7 5.3 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-120 289 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 104 59 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 104 59 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25 Link Distance (ft) 207 1772 380 Travel Time (s) 3.5 30.2 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-121 290 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 104 59 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 104 59 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 113 64 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 113 0 - 0 57 57 Stage 1 - - - - 57 - Stage 2 - - 0 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1476 - 950 1009 Stage 1 - - 966 - Stage 2 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1476 - 950 1009 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 950 - Stage 1 - 966 Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.1 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1476 - - 950 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.068 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 9.1 HCM Lane LOS A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-122 291 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt tt Traffic Volume (vph) 203 17 56 347 509 299 Future Volume (vph) 203 17 56 347 509 299 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 499 880 169 Travel Time (s) 13.6 12.0 2.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 22.6 22.6 11.6 37.4 25.8 Total Split (%) 37.7% 37.7% 19.3% 62.3% 43.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 19: Madison St. & Main Access t02'R' 04 05 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-123 292 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Improvements t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 r 1734 tt tt 1599 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 203 17 56 347 509 299 Future Volume (veh/h) 203 17 56 347 509 299 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 2386 934 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 466 205 No No 864 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 221 18 61 377 553 325 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 278 248 129 2386 1133 665 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.69 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 1734 3551 2189 1232 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 221 18 61 377 456 422 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1734 1730 1730 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.4 0.6 2.0 2.3 9.9 9.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 0.6 2.0 2.3 9.9 9.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 248 129 2386 934 864 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.07 0.47 0.16 0.49 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 523 466 205 2386 934 864 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.2 21.4 26.6 3.2 8.6 8.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.1 0.1 2.7 0.1 1.8 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.3 0.6 0.8 0.3 2.9 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.3 21.5 29.3 3.4 10.4 10.6 LnGrp LOS C C C A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 239 438 878 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.7 7.0 10.5 Approach LOS C A B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 45.9 14.1 9.0 36.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.9 18.1 7.1 21.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.3 9.4 4.0 11.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 2.2 0.5 0.0 3.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.3 HCM 6th LOS B The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-124 293 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-125 294 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� tt Traffic Volume (vph) 277 8 28 232 25 13 Future Volume (vph) 277 8 28 232 25 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 50 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 403 335 383 Travel Time (s) 5.5 4.6 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-125 294 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� HCM Lane LOS ) tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - Traffic Vol, veh/h 277 8 28 232 25 13 Future Vol, veh/h 277 8 28 232 25 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 50 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 301 9 30 252 27 14 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 310 0 492 306 Stage 1 - - - - 306 - Stage 2 - 186 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 6.63 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.83 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 3.519 3.319 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1249 521 733 Stage 1 - 746 - Stage 2 - 828 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1249 508 733 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 585 - Stage 1 - 746 Stage 2 - 808 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.9 11.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 628 - 1249 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.066 - 0.024 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 - 8 HCM Lane LOS B - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.1 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-126 295 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-127 296 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 274 16 0 260 0 17 Future Volume (vph) 274 16 0 260 0 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 335 276 233 Travel Time (s) 4.6 3.8 6.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-127 296 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� 0.1 - - tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 274 16 0 260 0 17 Future Vol, veh/h 274 16 0 260 0 17 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 298 17 0 283 0 18 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - 307 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy - - 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.319 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 732 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 732 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 732 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-128 297 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 35 0 550 773 34 Future Volume (vph) 0 35 0 550 773 34 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 210 224 288 Travel Time (s) 5.7 3.1 3.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-129 298 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 35 0 550 773 34 Future Vol, veh/h 0 35 0 550 773 34 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 38 0 598 840 37 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 439 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.94 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 566 0 - Stage 1 0 - 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 566 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 566 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.067 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.8 - HCM Lane LOS B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-130 299 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t t Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1 1 233 406 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 1 1 233 406 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 25 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 306 597 522 Travel Time (s) 8.3 10.2 8.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-131 300 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y *'+ t Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 233 406 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 233 406 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 1 253 441 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 571 221 442 0 - 0 Stage 1 442 - - - - - Stage 2 129 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 451 783 1114 - Stage 1 615 - - - Stage 2 883 - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 451 783 1114 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 451 - - - Stage 1 614 - - Stage 2 883 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.3 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1114 - 572 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 11.3 - HCM Lane LOS A A B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-132 301 Queuing and Blocking Report EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour Intersection: 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 56 Average Queue (ft) 34 95th Queue (ft) 59 Link Distance (ft) 352 Upstream Blk Time (%) 65 Queuing Penalty (veh) 113 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 13 Storage Blk Time (%) 127 Queuing Penalty (veh) 21 Intersection: 19: Madison St. & Main Access Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB B51 Directions Served L R L T T T TR T Maximum Queue (ft) 178 132 44 65 56 113 124 13 Average Queue (ft) 127 26 21 35 22 59 69 2 95th Queue (ft) 191 130 52 71 57 120 133 21 Link Distance (ft) 452 848 848 96 96 183 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 6 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 15 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 Intersection: 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 Movement WB NB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 20 26 Average Queue (ft) 2 7 95th Queue (ft) 15 28 Link Distance (ft) 348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Club at Coral Mountain Urban Crossroads, Inc. F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn SimTraffic Report 1-133 302 Queuing and Blocking Report EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour Intersection: 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 Movement NB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 26 Average Queue (ft) 4 95th Queue (ft) 22 Link Distance (ft) 199 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 22: Madison St. & Proiect Access 3 Movement EB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 24 Average Queue (ft) 7 95th Queue (ft) 28 Link Distance (ft) 164 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access Movement EB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 15 Average Queue (ft) 2 95th Queue (ft) 15 Link Distance (ft) 259 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 14 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. SimTraffic Report 1-134 303 Queuing and Blocking Report EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour Intersection: 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 49 Average Queue (ft) 31 95th Queue (ft) 56 Link Distance (ft) 352 Upstream Blk Time (%) 66 Queuing Penalty (veh) 159 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 13 54 Storage Blk Time (%) 98 Queuing Penalty (veh) 43 Intersection: 19: Madison St. & Main Access Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB B51 B51 Directions Served L R L T T T TR T T Maximum Queue (ft) 141 71 76 66 47 159 180 13 54 Average Queue (ft) 98 22 43 31 18 92 114 2 11 95th Queue (ft) 154 86 76 64 49 164 188 22 49 Link Distance (ft) 452 848 848 105 105 173 173 Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 33 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 7 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 Intersection: 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 Movement WB NB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 26 51 Average Queue (ft) 8 23 95th Queue (ft) 30 55 Link Distance (ft) 348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 The Wave - Coral Mountain Urban Crossroads, Inc. F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn SimTraffic Report 1-135 304 Queuing and Blocking Report EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour Intersection: 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) EB NB TR R 20 34 3 15 25 40 285 199 Intersection: 22: Madison St. & Proiect Access 3 Movement EB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 36 Average Queue (ft) 20 95th Queue (ft) 46 Link Distance (ft) 164 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 55 The Wave - Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. SimTraffic Report 1-136 305 Queuing and Blocking Report EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour Intersection: 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access Movement EB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 10 Average Queue (ft) 2 95th Queue (ft) 13 Link Distance (ft) 265 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) The Wave - Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. SimTraffic Report 1-137 306 URBAN CROSSROADS This Page Intentionally Left Blank 15455-03 Club at Coral Mtn Supplemental LOS Assessment.docx HM Club at Coral Mountain 307 URBAN CROSSROADS ATTACHMENT 2: Club at Coral Mountain 2040 WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 15455-03 Club at Coral Mtn Supplemental LOS Assessment.docx 308 URBAN CROSSROADS This Page Intentionally Left Blank 15455-03 Club at Coral Mtn Supplemental LOS Assessment.docx Club at Coral Mountain 309 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Future Volume (vph) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 32.5 43.4 11.6 22.5 32.4 11.5 32.6 32.6 32.4 53.5 53.5 Total Split (%) 27.1% 36.2% 9.7% 18.8% 27.0% 9.6% 27.2% 27.2% 27.0% 44.6% 44.6% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 87.9 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 t02'R' 1v X04 06 1P 05 0 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-1 310 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1716 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Future Volume (veh/h) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 407 1.00 1.00 274 1.00 1.00 810 1.00 1.00 1413 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 405 No 556 103 No 743 272 No 361 574 No 630 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 329 187 39 56 192 141 41 663 123 327 1102 146 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 357 674 138 86 274 633 272 810 361 574 1413 630 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.33 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 2862 585 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 329 112 114 56 192 141 41 663 123 327 1102 146 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1716 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.3 6.3 6.6 3.8 6.5 2.9 2.4 21.8 6.7 18.6 33.2 3.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.3 6.3 6.6 3.8 6.5 2.9 2.4 21.8 6.7 18.6 33.2 3.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 357 407 404 86 274 633 272 810 361 574 1413 630 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.27 0.28 0.65 0.70 0.22 0.15 0.82 0.34 0.57 0.78 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 405 561 556 103 519 743 272 810 361 574 1413 630 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.7 37.5 37.6 56.0 53.9 8.8 43.7 43.5 26.8 33.1 30.8 6.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.9 0.4 0.4 10.7 3.3 0.2 0.3 9.0 2.5 1.3 4.3 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 11.7 2.6 2.7 1.9 2.9 1.0 1.0 9.9 3.1 7.7 13.7 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.6 37.9 38.0 66.8 57.1 9.0 43.9 52.5 29.4 34.4 35.1 7.3 LnGrp LOS E D D E E A D D C C D A Approach Vol, veh/h 555 389 827 1575 Approach Delay, s/veh 57.9 41.1 48.7 32.4 Approach LOS E D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.2 32.6 10.4 32.7 23.3 53.5 29.2 14.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.9 28.1 7.1 38.9 7.0 49.0 28.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 20.6 23.8 5.8 8.6 4.4 35.2 24.3 8.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.6 1.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 6.3 0.4 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.7 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-2 311 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Future Volume (vph) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 22.0 30.4 14.1 22.5 38.0 11.7 37.5 37.5 38.0 63.8 63.8 Total Split (%) 18.3% 25.3% 11.8% 18.8% 31.7% 9.8% 31.3% 31.3% 31.7% 53.2% 53.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 87.9 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 t0 2 'R' 01 1 ? -1"04 06 'R' 05 - 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-3 312 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1682 tib 1716 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Future Volume (veh/h) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 252 1.00 1.00 274 1.00 1.00 952 1.00 1.00 1710 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 491 No 370 139 No 818 279 No 424 659 No 763 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 329 187 39 56 192 141 41 663 123 327 1102 146 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 390 417 85 86 274 708 279 952 424 659 1710 763 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.38 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow,vehlh 3365 2862 585 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 329 112 114 56 192 141 41 663 123 327 1102 146 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1682 1730 1716 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.5 7.1 7.3 3.8 6.5 1.9 2.4 20.6 6.2 17.3 28.4 3.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.5 7.1 7.3 3.8 6.5 1.9 2.4 20.6 6.2 17.3 28.4 3.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 390 252 250 86 274 708 279 952 424 659 1710 763 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.44 0.46 0.65 0.70 0.20 0.15 0.70 0.29 0.50 0.64 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 491 373 370 139 519 818 279 952 424 659 1710 763 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.0 46.8 46.9 56.0 53.9 8.0 43.3 39.0 23.5 28.4 22.5 6.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.4 1.2 1.3 8.2 3.3 0.1 0.2 4.2 1.7 0.6 1.9 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.2 3.0 3.1 1.8 2.9 1.1 1.0 8.9 2.9 6.9 11.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.4 48.0 48.2 64.2 57.1 8.1 43.5 43.2 25.2 29.0 24.4 7.1 LnGrp LOS E D D E E A D D C C C A Approach Vol, veh/h 555 389 827 1575 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.6 40.4 40.6 23.8 Approach LOS E D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 50.1 37.5 10.4 22.0 23.8 63.8 18.4 14.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.5 33.0 9.6 25.9 7.2 59.3 17.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 19.3 22.6 5.8 9.3 4.4 30.4 13.5 8.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.8 3.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 8.7 0.4 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.3 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-4 313 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r A tt r tt Traffic Volume (vph) 167 167 1 1090 154 372 1367 Future Volume (vph) 167 167 1 1090 154 372 1367 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 140 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 767 818 Travel Time (s) 71.6 10.5 11.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Detector Phase 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 24.0 24.0 11.5 54.0 54.0 42.0 84.5 Total Split (%) 20.0% 20.0% 9.6% 45.0% 45.0% 35.0% 70.4% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. 2'R' 013 7 06 ► 05 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-5 314 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Movement WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1734 r A tt r 1734 tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 167 167 1 1090 154 372 1367 Future Volume (veh/h) 167 167 1 1090 154 372 1367 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1442 1.00 1.00 2773 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 257 No 643 609 No Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 170 170 1112 157 380 1395 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 229 204 1442 643 609 2773 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.35 0.80 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 3551 1543 1734 3551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 170 170 1112 157 380 1395 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1730 1543 1734 1730 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.3 12.9 33.1 5.1 21.8 16.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.3 12.9 33.1 5.1 21.8 16.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 229 204 1442 643 609 2773 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.83 0.77 0.24 0.62 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 289 257 1442 643 609 2773 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.1 50.8 30.1 9.6 32.3 4.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.3 16.6 4.1 0.9 2.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.2 5.7 13.6 2.8 9.0 3.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.4 67.4 34.1 10.6 34.3 4.6 LnGrp LOS E E C B C A Approach Vol, veh/h 340 1269 1775 Approach Delay, s/veh 62.4 31.2 11.0 Approach LOS E C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.2 54.0 100.2 19.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.5 49.5 80.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 23.8 35.1 18.1 14.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.9 6.5 13.5 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-6 315 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 84 583 1183 139 319 160 421 964 74 228 1012 57 Future Volume (vph) 84 583 1183 139 319 160 421 964 74 228 1012 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 160 150 910 150 160 120 305 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 80 120 120 100 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5080 840 924 2398 Travel Time (s) 63.0 10.4 12.6 32.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 17.2 29.0 18.2 30.0 25.2 23.6 47.6 47.6 25.2 49.2 Total Split (%) 14.3% 24.2% 15.2% 25.0% 21.0% 19.7% 39.7% 39.7% 21.0% 41.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 t0 2 'R' 1 ? -1"04 06 05 _ 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-7 316 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1734 t 1787 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 84 583 1183 139 319 160 421 964 74 228 1012 57 Future Volume (veh/h) 84 583 1183 139 319 160 421 964 74 228 1012 57 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 662 1.00 1.00 782 1.00 1.00 1243 1.00 1.00 644 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 184 No 198 No 661 637 No 554 351 No 666 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 86 595 0 142 326 163 430 984 76 233 1033 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 108 662 0.0 168 782 661 637 1243 554 351 1241 70 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.19 0.00 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.20 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 1734 3331 187 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 86 595 0 142 326 163 430 984 76 233 537 554 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1734 1730 1787 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 20.2 0.0 9.7 9.7 1.4 14.3 30.6 2.9 14.8 33.8 33.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 20.2 0.0 9.7 9.7 1.4 14.3 30.6 2.9 14.8 33.8 33.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 108 662 168 782 661 637 1243 554 351 644 666 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.90 0.85 0.42 0.25 0.68 0.79 0.14 0.66 0.83 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 184 706 198 782 661 637 1243 554 351 644 666 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.5 47.4 0.0 53.3 39.7 11.2 45.2 34.4 13.9 44.1 34.2 34.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 1.6 0.0 24.2 0.4 0.2 2.8 5.2 0.5 4.6 12.0 11.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.5 8.4 0.0 5.2 4.0 1.7 6.0 13.0 1.4 6.6 15.5 15.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.7 49.0 0.0 77.5 40.1 11.4 48.0 39.6 14.4 48.7 46.2 45.9 LnGrp LOS E D E D B D D B D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 681 A 631 1490 1324 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.9 41.1 40.8 46.5 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.8 47.6 16.1 27.5 27.2 49.2 12.0 31.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.7 43.1 13.7 24.5 19.1 44.7 12.7 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 16.8 32.6 11.7 22.2 16.3 35.9 7.9 11.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 4.6 0.1 0.8 0.5 4.1 0.1 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-8 317 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 100 748 122 87 622 137 236 921 65 173 1009 115 Future Volume (vph) 100 748 122 87 622 137 236 921 65 173 1009 115 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 435 50 200 325 160 160 255 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 105 120 140 160 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 1169 798 1237 1379 Travel Time (s) 17.7 9.9 16.9 18.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 31.5 31.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 16.0 40.0 40.0 15.0 39.0 39.0 17.0 49.0 49.0 16.0 48.0 48.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 33.3% 33.3% 12.5% 32.5% 32.5% 14.2% 40.8% 40.8% 13.3% 40.0% 40.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 65.5 (55%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 t02 01 4,0,03 -1"04'R'- i35 05 - 03 'R'• Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-9 318 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 748 122 87 622 137 236 921 65 173 1009 115 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 748 122 87 622 137 236 921 65 173 1009 115 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1160 1.00 1.00 1130 1.00 1.00 1283 1.00 1.00 1254 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 166 No 517 152 No 504 350 No 572 322 No 559 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 763 124 89 635 140 241 940 66 177 1030 117 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 126 1160 517 111 1130 504 297 1283 572 269 1254 559 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.37 0.37 0.08 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 763 124 89 635 140 241 940 66 177 1030 117 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 22.6 5.3 6.1 18.2 6.2 8.4 28.2 2.6 6.1 32.4 4.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 22.6 5.3 6.1 18.2 6.2 8.4 28.2 2.6 6.1 32.4 4.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 126 1160 517 111 1130 504 297 1283 572 269 1254 559 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.66 0.24 0.80 0.56 0.28 0.81 0.73 0.12 0.66 0.82 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 166 1160 517 152 1130 504 350 1283 572 322 1254 559 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.8 34.0 16.4 55.4 33.3 17.7 53.7 32.6 15.1 53.6 34.7 15.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.7 2.9 1.1 18.9 2.0 1.4 11.7 3.7 0.4 3.7 6.1 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.7 9.6 2.5 3.1 7.5 3.0 3.9 11.7 1.2 2.6 13.9 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.5 37.0 17.5 74.3 35.3 19.1 65.4 36.3 15.5 57.3 40.8 16.4 LnGrp LOS E D B E D B E D B E D B Approach Vol, veh/h 989 864 1247 1324 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.4 36.7 40.8 40.9 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 49.0 12.2 44.7 15.1 48.0 13.2 43.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 44.5 10.5 35.5 12.5 43.5 11.5 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 8.1 30.2 8.1 24.6 10.4 34.4 9.0 20.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 5.2 0.0 3.9 0.2 4.5 0.0 3.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.5 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-10 319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r )) ttt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 165 546 86 39 626 124 225 895 82 296 1250 253 Future Volume (vph) 165 546 86 39 626 124 225 895 82 296 1250 253 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 210 300 240 290 220 200 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 579 1049 1270 550 Travel Time (s) 8.8 14.3 17.3 7.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 7 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 11.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 20.0 40.4 40.4 11.6 32.0 21.9 15.0 46.1 46.1 21.9 53.0 53.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 33.7% 33.7% 9.7% 26.7% 18.3% 12.5% 38.4% 38.4% 18.3% 44.2% 44.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max None None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 77.7 (65%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue 1 2 'R'- ■ 04 03 05 06 'R' �03 i3 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-11 320 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r )) ttt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 165 546 86 39 626 124 225 895 82 296 1250 253 Future Volume (veh/h) 165 546 86 39 626 124 225 895 82 296 1250 253 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1104 1.00 1.00 865 1.00 1.00 1724 1.00 1.00 1398 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 224 No 492 103 No 604 294 No 535 488 No 624 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 168 557 88 40 639 127 230 913 84 302 1276 258 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 194 1104 492 75 865 604 282 1724 535 476 1398 624 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.38 0.38 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.17 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 4972 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 168 557 88 40 639 127 230 913 84 302 1276 258 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1657 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.4 14.8 3.5 2.7 19.9 1.5 8.0 16.5 3.3 10.0 40.9 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.4 14.8 3.5 2.7 19.9 1.5 8.0 16.5 3.3 10.0 40.9 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194 1104 492 75 865 604 282 1724 535 476 1398 624 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.50 0.18 0.54 0.74 0.21 0.81 0.53 0.16 0.63 0.91 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 224 1104 492 103 865 604 294 1724 535 488 1398 624 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.1 29.8 15.6 55.7 38.5 10.3 53.0 27.7 16.2 46.9 28.9 10.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.6 1.6 0.8 5.9 5.6 0.8 15.5 1.2 0.6 2.6 10.6 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.1 5.9 1.7 1.3 8.4 1.3 3.8 6.0 1.5 4.1 16.5 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.7 31.4 16.4 61.6 44.1 11.1 68.6 28.9 16.8 49.5 39.5 12.3 LnGrp LOS E C B E D B E C B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 813 806 1227 1836 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.2 39.7 35.5 37.3 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.7 42.8 14.6 53.0 17.9 34.5 21.5 46.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 35.9 10.5 48.5 15.5 27.5 17.4 41.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.7 16.8 10.0 42.9 13.4 21.9 12.0 18.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.9 0.1 2.1 0.5 6.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.6 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-12 321 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t rr tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 8 10 13 43 8 771 5 249 29 1778 194 27 Future Volume (vph) 8 10 13 43 8 771 5 249 29 1778 194 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 110 110 140 140 150 150 240 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 0 110 90 140 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 531 5080 436 1277 Travel Time (s) 6.6 63.0 5.4 15.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 63.0 22.5 23.0 23.0 63.0 63.5 63.5 Total Split (%) 9.6% 18.8% 18.8% 9.6% 18.8% 52.5% 18.8% 19.2% 19.2% 52.5% 52.9% 52.9% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max C -Max C -Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 22.5 (19%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 1 10 2 'R'. V1 i? --IW04 06 s33 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-13 322 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 t rr 1734 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 10 13 43 8 771 5 249 29 1778 194 27 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 10 13 43 8 771 5 249 29 1778 194 27 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 106 1.00 1.00 163 1.00 1.00 533 1.00 1.00 1701 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 101 No 232 101 No 2017 442 No 238 1994 No 759 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 10 13 44 8 787 5 254 30 1814 198 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 24 106 90 78 163 1853 442 533 238 1994 1701 759 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.26 0.15 0.15 0.59 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 2716 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 10 13 44 8 787 5 254 30 1814 198 28 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1358 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.6 0.6 3.0 0.5 2.5 0.3 8.0 1.7 57.2 3.7 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.6 0.6 3.0 0.5 2.5 0.3 8.0 1.7 57.2 3.7 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 24 106 90 78 163 1853 442 533 238 1994 1701 759 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.09 0.14 0.57 0.05 0.42 0.01 0.48 0.13 0.91 0.12 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 273 232 101 273 2017 442 533 238 1994 1701 759 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.6 53.5 22.6 56.2 50.0 3.3 33.4 46.3 32.2 21.6 16.4 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 0.4 0.7 4.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 3.0 1.1 7.7 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.2 1.4 0.1 3.5 0.8 20.9 1.4 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.8 53.9 23.4 60.7 50.0 3.4 33.4 49.4 33.3 29.3 16.6 10.9 LnGrp LOS E D C E D A C D C C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 31 839 289 2040 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.4 6.9 47.4 27.8 Approach LOS D A D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 75.6 23.0 9.9 11.5 35.1 63.5 6.1 15.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 58.5 18.5 7.0 18.0 18.0 59.0 7.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 59.2 10.0 5.0 2.6 2.3 5.7 2.5 4.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.2 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-14 323 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r r r r Traffic Volume (vph) 140 572 664 59 515 428 336 592 60 390 1106 187 Future Volume (vph) 140 572 664 59 515 428 336 592 60 390 1106 187 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 55 Link Distance (ft) 709 813 334 462 Travel Time (s) 9.7 11.1 4.6 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-15 324 MITIG8 - 2040WP AM Thu May 25, 2023 19:33:00 Page 1-1 Club at Coral Mountain TIA (JN:15455) 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report FHWA Roundabout Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.9 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Lanes: 2 2 3 3 Volume Module: Base Vol: 336 592 60 390 1106 187 140 572 664 59 515 428 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 336 592 60 390 1106 187 140 572 664 59 515 428 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 336 592 60 390 1106 187 140 572 664 59 515 428 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.00 PHF Volume: 343 604 61 398 1129 191 143 584 0 60 526 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 343 604 61 398 1129 191 143 584 0 60 526 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 343 604 61 398 1129 191 143 584 0 60 526 0 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I PCE Module: AutoPCE: 343 604 61 398 1129 191 143 584 0 60 526 0 TruckPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ComboPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BicyclePCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adj Volume: 343 604 61 398 1129 191 143 584 0 60 526 0 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours << CircVolume: 398 343 1527 947 MaxVolume: 2137 2177 xxxxxx xxxxxx PedVolume: 0 0 0 0 AdjMaxVol: 2137 2177 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachVol: 1008 1717 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachV/C: 0.47 0.79 1.00 1.00 ApproachDel: 3.2 7.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: A A Queue: 2.6 9.6 xxxx xxxx Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 2-16 325 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r ) tt ) tt Traffic Volume (vph) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 1047 13 40 1657 51 Future Volume (vph) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 1047 13 40 1657 51 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 160 0 180 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 25 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 509 561 1820 1343 Travel Time (s) 13.9 15.3 22.6 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 40.5 18.0 39.5 Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 54.0 18.0 54.0 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 15.0% 45.0% 15.0% 45.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None C -Min Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 30 (25%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo } i31 102 R' -11"04 00 5 i3,3,%'. 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-17 326 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 27 4 r 76 4 r ) tt 1810 ) tt 1794 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 1047 13 40 1657 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 1047 13 40 1657 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 2137 1.00 1.00 2268 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 388 No 540 406 No 540 173 No 1167 173 No 1227 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 38 1 2 4 1 16 13 1068 13 41 1691 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 62 1 182 55 8 182 61 3265 40 129 3391 104 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.64 0.64 0.15 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow,vehlh 19 7 1543 10 67 1543 1734 5063 62 1734 4956 152 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 39 0 2 5 0 16 13 699 382 41 1131 612 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 27 0 1543 76 0 1543 1734 1657 1810 1734 1657 1794 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 11.4 11.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.2 0.0 0.1 14.1 0.0 1.1 0.9 11.4 11.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 62 0 182 63 0 182 61 2137 1167 129 2268 1227 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.09 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.50 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 388 0 540 406 0 540 173 2137 1167 173 2268 1227 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 0.47 0.47 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.7 0.0 46.7 47.6 0.0 47.2 56.3 9.6 9.6 48.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.9 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 3.7 0.4 0.7 1.4 0.4 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.4 3.6 4.0 1.1 0.1 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.6 0.0 46.8 48.7 0.0 47.6 59.9 10.0 10.3 49.7 0.4 0.7 LnGrp LOS E A D D A D E A B D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 41 21 1094 1784 Approach Delay, s/veh 78.0 47.9 10.7 1.6 Approach LOS E D B A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.9 84.8 20.3 10.2 89.5 20.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 46.5 42.0 12.0 46.5 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.5 13.4 16.2 2.9 2.0 16.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 14.3 0.3 0.0 30.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.4 HCM 6th LOS A Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-18 327 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 256 347 81 236 390 385 140 857 108 359 1440 362 Future Volume (vph) 256 347 81 236 390 385 140 857 108 359 1440 362 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 245 100 105 0 360 220 280 230 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 45 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 693 995 1343 697 Travel Time (s) 9.5 15.1 16.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 18.0 31.5 31.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (s) 18.0 37.0 37.0 20.0 39.0 39.0 18.0 41.0 41.0 22.0 45.0 45.0 Total Split (%) 15.0% 30.8% 30.8% 16.7% 32.5% 32.5% 15.0% 34.2% 34.2% 18.3% 37.5% 37.5% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Min C -Min C -Min None C -Min C -Min None None None None None None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 t0 2 01 ? 4 rR'- 05 1313 ry. Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-19 328 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1682 tt r 1682 tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 256 347 81 236 390 385 140 857 108 359 1440 362 Future Volume (veh/h) 256 347 81 236 390 385 140 857 108 359 1440 362 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 916 1.00 1.00 916 1.00 1.00 1116 1.00 1.00 1547 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 336 No 408 393 No 408 173 No 431 584 No 482 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 261 354 83 241 398 393 143 874 110 366 1469 369 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 336 916 408 336 916 408 172 1116 346 584 1547 480 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.26 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow,vehlh 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 1734 4972 1543 3365 4972 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 261 354 83 241 398 393 143 874 110 366 1469 369 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1734 1657 1543 1682 1657 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 8.7 4.2 8.2 10.1 17.7 9.6 19.0 4.6 11.5 34.0 23.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 8.7 4.2 8.2 10.1 17.7 9.6 19.0 4.6 11.5 34.0 23.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 336 916 408 336 916 408 172 1116 346 584 1547 480 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.39 0.20 0.72 0.43 0.96 0.83 0.78 0.32 0.63 0.95 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 336 916 408 393 916 408 173 1388 431 584 1554 482 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.7 29.2 27.9 49.4 29.6 12.6 50.1 37.2 17.4 41.0 31.1 28.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.4 1.2 1.1 3.8 1.5 36.0 25.2 2.7 0.7 1.6 12.9 7.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.0 3.4 1.6 3.4 4.0 8.6 5.0 6.7 2.3 4.4 12.2 8.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.2 30.5 29.0 53.2 31.1 48.6 75.3 39.8 18.1 42.6 44.0 36.2 LnGrp LOS E C C D C D E D B D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 698 1032 1127 2204 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.4 42.9 42.2 42.4 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.3 34.4 18.0 39.3 17.9 44.8 18.0 39.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 * 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 * 34 14.0 29.5 12.0 37.5 12.0 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 13.5 21.0 10.2 10.7 11.6 36.0 11.0 19.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 5.9 0.1 4.0 0.0 1.4 0.1 5.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-20 329 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r t r Traffic Volume (vph) 375 411 1 1 672 270 1 2 1 351 1 789 Future Volume (vph) 375 411 1 1 672 270 1 2 1 351 1 789 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 150 0 150 150 Storage Lanes 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25 40 Link Distance (ft) 973 661 281 437 Travel Time (s) 16.6 11.3 7.7 7.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 8 8 7 4 5 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 Total Split (s) 41.0 63.5 11.5 34.0 34.0 22.5 22.5 22.5 45.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 34.2% 52.9% 9.6% 28.3% 28.3% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 37.5% 34.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max None None None Max Max Max Max None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. I o 1 -1"0 2 'R'- IF■ 4 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-21 330 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1820 1734 tt r 1395 0 0 1734 t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 375 411 1 1 672 270 1 2 1 351 1 789 Future Volume (veh/h) 375 411 1 1 672 270 1 2 1 351 1 789 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 948 1.00 1.00 1513 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 615 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 1055 No 997 101 No 641 247 No 0 520 No 729 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 383 419 1 1 686 276 1 2 1 358 1 805 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 467 1941 5 3 1513 641 70 125 52 520 615 729 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, vehlh 3469 3541 8 1734 3642 1543 214 832 349 3469 1821 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 383 205 215 1 686 276 4 0 0 358 1 805 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1820 1734 1821 1543 1395 0 0 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.9 7.3 7.3 0.1 16.3 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 40.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.9 7.3 7.3 0.1 16.3 9.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 40.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 467 948 997 3 1513 641 247 0 0 520 615 729 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.45 0.43 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 1.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1055 948 997 101 1513 641 247 0 0 520 615 729 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.5 13.9 13.9 59.8 25.3 9.5 43.5 0.0 0.0 48.3 26.3 31.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.6 0.5 0.5 44.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 65.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.7 2.9 3.0 0.1 6.9 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 33.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.1 14.4 14.4 104.2 25.5 9.9 43.6 0.0 0.0 55.6 26.4 97.4 LnGrp LOS D B B F C A D A A E C F Approach Vol, veh/h 803 963 4 1164 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.3 21.1 43.6 84.5 Approach LOS C C D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 70.3 45.0 20.7 54.3 22.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 59.0 40.5 36.5 29.5 18.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.1 9.3 42.5 14.9 18.3 13.7 2.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.3 4.1 0.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.6 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-22 331 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t r t t Traffic Volume (vph) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Future Volume (vph) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 21.0 39.5 11.5 30.0 26.5 32.0 42.5 26.5 37.0 Total Split (%) 17.5% 32.9% 9.6% 25.0% 22.1% 26.7% 35.4% 22.1% 30.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue 1 I i2X40_4 05 i3S'R' 0- i33:1 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-23 332 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1543 1734 t r 1734 t 1779 1734 t 1580 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Future Volume (veh/h) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 464 1.00 1.00 347 1.00 1.00 746 1.00 1.00 648 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 238 No 450 101 No 520 397 No 767 318 No 592 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 230 381 18 273 290 285 556 40 187 443 302 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 180 464 414 46 347 486 314 1411 101 216 739 500 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.43 0.43 0.12 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 3274 235 1734 1974 1337 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 230 381 18 273 290 285 293 303 187 388 357 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1779 1734 1730 1580 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 13.5 28.8 1.2 17.1 19.0 19.3 13.9 14.0 12.7 21.7 21.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 13.5 28.8 1.2 17.1 19.0 19.3 13.9 14.0 12.7 21.7 21.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.85 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 180 464 414 46 347 486 314 746 767 216 648 592 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.50 0.92 0.39 0.79 0.60 0.91 0.39 0.39 0.87 0.60 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 238 505 450 101 387 520 397 746 767 318 648 592 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.9 37.1 42.7 57.5 46.2 34.7 48.1 23.4 23.4 51.6 30.3 30.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.3 0.8 23.2 5.4 9.3 1.7 20.8 1.6 1.5 15.3 4.1 4.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.4 5.6 13.2 0.6 8.4 7.1 9.8 5.7 5.9 6.2 9.3 8.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.1 37.9 65.8 62.9 55.6 36.3 68.9 24.9 24.9 66.8 34.3 34.9 LnGrp LOS E D E E E D E C C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 764 581 881 932 Approach Delay, s/veh 58.7 46.2 39.2 41.1 Approach LOS E D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.4 56.2 7.7 36.7 26.2 49.4 17.0 27.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.0 38.0 7.0 35.0 27.5 32.5 16.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 14.7 16.0 3.2 30.8 21.3 23.9 12.4 21.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.3 3.1 0.0 1.4 0.4 2.8 0.1 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.7 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-24 333 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r t tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Future Volume (vph) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 25.0 37.0 39.0 12.0 24.0 28.0 39.0 43.0 28.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split (%) 20.8% 30.8% 32.5% 10.0% 20.0% 23.3% 32.5% 35.8% 23.3% 26.7% 26.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 11: Monroe St.& Avenue 60/60th Avenue 01 102 SRI t1013 4 05 06 'R- 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-25 334 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Additional Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 t 1779 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Future Volume (veh/h) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 833 1.00 1.00 562 1.00 1.00 793 1.00 1.00 1385 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 296 No 700 108 No 443 499 No 815 340 No 618 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 230 381 18 273 290 285 556 40 187 443 302 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 181 833 653 46 562 443 317 1500 108 216 1385 618 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.46 0.46 0.12 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3274 235 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 230 381 18 273 290 285 293 303 187 443 302 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1779 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 6.5 22.7 1.2 8.6 19.5 19.3 13.3 13.3 12.7 10.6 17.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 6.5 22.7 1.2 8.6 19.5 19.3 13.3 13.3 12.7 10.6 17.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 181 833 653 46 562 443 317 793 815 216 1385 618 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.28 0.58 0.39 0.49 0.65 0.90 0.37 0.37 0.86 0.32 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 296 937 700 108 562 443 499 793 815 340 1385 618 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.8 37.1 26.5 57.5 45.7 37.5 48.0 21.2 21.2 51.5 24.7 26.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.2 0.2 1.1 5.4 0.7 3.4 12.9 1.3 1.3 13.0 0.6 2.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.0 2.7 8.1 0.6 3.7 7.6 9.1 5.3 5.5 6.1 4.2 6.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.0 37.2 27.6 62.9 46.3 41.0 60.9 22.5 22.5 64.5 25.4 29.6 LnGrp LOS E D C E D D E C C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 764 581 881 932 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.8 44.2 34.9 34.6 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.5 59.5 7.7 33.4 26.4 52.5 17.0 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 38.5 7.5 32.5 34.5 27.5 20.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 14.7 15.3 3.2 24.7 21.3 19.5 12.4 21.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.3 3.1 0.0 1.7 0.6 2.3 0.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.2 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-26 335 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Future Volume (vph) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 732 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 16.6 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 20.8 23.0 33.0 35.2 17.0 41.6 41.6 22.4 47.0 Total Split (%) 17.3% 19.2% 27.5% 29.3% 14.2% 34.7% 34.7% 18.7% 39.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 1 102 SRI. -OD4 i= 5 S36 'R'- 111111- 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-27 336 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1657 1734 t 1543 1734 tt r 1734 t 1774 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 267 1.00 1.00 495 1.00 1.00 1327 1.00 1.00 660 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 236 No 255 412 No 441 181 No 592 259 No 677 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 123 352 132 351 104 106 142 615 282 137 958 77 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 149 381 141 378 495 441 168 1327 592 164 1237 99 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 2474 913 1734 1730 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3244 261 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 123 244 240 351 104 106 142 615 282 137 511 524 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1657 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1774 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 16.7 17.2 23.8 5.5 6.3 9.7 16.0 16.5 9.3 31.1 31.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 16.7 17.2 23.8 5.5 6.3 9.7 16.0 16.5 9.3 31.1 31.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 267 255 378 495 441 168 1327 592 164 660 677 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.21 0.24 0.85 0.46 0.48 0.83 0.77 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 236 267 255 412 495 441 181 1327 592 259 660 677 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.9 50.0 50.2 46.0 32.6 32.8 53.3 27.7 27.9 53.4 32.6 32.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.3 33.9 39.7 26.3 0.2 0.3 28.2 1.2 2.7 12.4 8.6 8.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.0 9.4 9.6 13.0 2.3 2.4 5.4 6.5 6.5 4.5 13.8 14.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.2 83.8 89.9 72.3 32.8 33.1 81.5 28.9 30.6 65.8 41.2 41.0 LnGrp LOS E F F E C C F C C E D D Approach Vol, veh/h 607 561 1039 1172 Approach Delay, s/veh 82.7 57.6 36.6 44.0 Approach LOS F E D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.9 50.5 30.6 23.0 16.1 50.3 14.8 38.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.9 37.1 28.5 18.5 12.5 42.5 16.3 30.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 11.3 18.5 25.8 19.2 11.7 33.1 10.4 8.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 4.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.1 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.9 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-28 337 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r t tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Future Volume (vph) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 732 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 16.6 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 20.8 22.6 22.6 36.0 37.8 12.2 47.2 36.0 14.2 49.2 Total Split (%) 17.3% 18.8% 18.8% 30.0% 31.5% 10.2% 39.3% 30.0% 11.8% 41.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 01 t02 ',R- f 0? 4 0506 rR'- - 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-29 338 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 t 1543 1682 tt r 1682 t 1774 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 429 1.00 1.00 445 1.00 1.00 1553 1.00 1.00 776 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 236 No 233 455 No 428 216 No 1032 272 No 796 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 123 352 132 351 104 106 142 615 282 137 958 77 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 149 429 191 381 445 397 195 1553 1032 194 1456 117 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.06 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 1730 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3244 261 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 123 352 132 351 104 106 142 615 282 137 511 524 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1774 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 11.9 9.8 23.8 5.7 6.6 5.0 14.3 8.9 4.8 27.7 27.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 11.9 9.8 23.8 5.7 6.6 5.0 14.3 8.9 4.8 27.7 27.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 429 191 381 445 397 195 1553 1032 194 776 796 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.82 0.69 0.92 0.23 0.27 0.73 0.40 0.27 0.71 0.66 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 236 522 233 455 480 428 216 1553 1032 272 776 796 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.9 51.3 50.4 45.8 35.2 35.5 55.6 22.2 8.1 55.5 25.9 25.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.3 8.5 6.5 22.0 0.3 0.4 10.6 0.8 0.7 4.8 4.3 4.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.0 5.5 4.1 12.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 5.6 3.0 2.1 11.5 11.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.2 59.8 56.8 67.9 35.5 35.9 66.2 22.9 8.7 60.3 30.2 30.1 LnGrp LOS E E E E D D E C A E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 607 561 1039 1172 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.5 55.8 25.0 33.7 Approach LOS E E C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 58.4 30.8 19.4 11.4 58.4 14.8 35.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.7 42.7 31.5 18.1 7.7 44.7 16.3 33.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.8 16.3 25.8 13.9 7.0 29.7 10.4 8.6 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 4.9 0.6 1.0 0.0 5.2 0.1 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.5 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-30 339 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r t tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 32 391 97 54 224 235 49 789 94 234 936 65 Future Volume (vph) 32 391 97 54 224 235 49 789 94 234 936 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 280 150 150 150 105 150 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 1251 918 726 Travel Time (s) 71.6 17.1 12.5 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 11.6 28.0 13.0 29.4 30.0 13.8 49.0 30.0 65.2 65.2 Total Split (%) 9.7% 23.3% 10.8% 24.5% 25.0% 11.5% 40.8% 25.0% 54.3% 54.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. '�7.0 1 M" t02 ',R- 3 -1"04 5 0S 'R' - 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-31 340 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1699 1734 tt r 1734 t 1754 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 391 97 54 224 235 49 789 94 234 936 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 391 97 54 224 235 49 789 94 234 936 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 291 1.00 1.00 617 1.00 1.00 827 1.00 1.00 2026 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 103 No 333 123 No 559 134 No 839 369 No 904 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 399 99 55 229 240 50 805 96 239 955 66 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 67 463 114 85 617 514 82 1488 177 268 2026 904 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.48 0.48 0.15 0.59 0.59 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 2753 676 1734 3460 1543 1734 3113 371 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 249 249 55 229 240 50 447 454 239 955 66 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1699 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1754 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 16.8 17.1 3.7 7.0 14.7 3.4 21.8 21.8 16.2 19.0 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 16.8 17.1 3.7 7.0 14.7 3.4 21.8 21.8 16.2 19.0 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 67 291 286 85 617 514 82 827 839 268 2026 904 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.86 0.87 0.65 0.37 0.47 0.61 0.54 0.54 0.89 0.47 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 103 339 333 123 718 559 134 827 839 369 2026 904 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.5 48.5 48.6 56.0 43.4 31.6 56.1 22.0 22.0 49.7 14.2 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 13.0 14.7 8.0 0.4 0.7 7.1 2.5 2.5 17.9 0.8 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.0 8.0 8.1 1.8 2.9 5.3 1.6 8.8 8.9 8.1 6.8 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.4 61.5 63.3 64.0 43.8 32.3 63.2 24.6 24.5 67.6 15.0 10.9 LnGrp LOS E E E E D C E C C E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 531 524 951 1260 Approach Delay, s/veh 62.3 40.6 26.6 24.8 Approach LOS E D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.1 61.9 10.4 24.7 10.2 74.8 9.2 25.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.5 44.5 8.5 23.5 9.3 60.7 7.1 24.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 18.2 23.8 5.7 19.1 5.4 21.0 4.2 16.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.4 5.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.3 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.0 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-32 341 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 169 480 217 108 397 52 79 939 152 51 1134 209 Future Volume (vph) 169 480 217 108 397 52 79 939 152 51 1134 209 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 150 150 150 150 150 150 700 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 672 623 677 775 Travel Time (s) 8.3 7.7 9.2 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 15.0 28.1 28.1 19.1 32.2 32.2 16.3 59.4 59.4 13.4 56.5 56.5 Total Split (%) 12.5% 23.4% 23.4% 15.9% 26.8% 26.8% 13.6% 49.5% 49.5% 11.2% 47.1% 47.1% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 01 t Q 2 'R'- � ? 00 5 06 'R'- 03 - M" ::,� Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-33 342 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 169 480 217 108 397 52 79 939 152 51 1134 209 Future Volume (veh/h) 169 480 217 108 397 52 79 939 152 51 1134 209 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 591 1.00 1.00 511 1.00 1.00 2047 1.00 1.00 2007 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 346 No 304 211 No 356 171 No 867 129 No 850 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 172 490 221 110 405 53 81 958 155 52 1157 213 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 346 591 250 135 511 217 102 2047 867 83 2007 850 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.56 0.56 0.05 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, vehlh 3469 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 172 490 221 110 405 53 81 958 155 52 1157 213 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 15.6 14.1 7.5 12.9 3.1 5.5 18.8 3.8 3.5 25.1 5.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 15.6 14.1 7.5 12.9 3.1 5.5 18.8 3.8 3.5 25.1 5.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 346 591 250 135 511 217 102 2047 867 83 2007 850 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.83 0.88 0.81 0.79 0.24 0.79 0.47 0.18 0.62 0.58 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 346 716 304 211 841 356 171 2047 867 129 2007 850 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.2 48.7 34.7 54.5 49.9 33.7 55.7 15.6 5.4 56.1 17.7 5.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 6.9 21.9 12.7 2.8 0.6 12.8 0.8 0.5 7.4 1.2 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.4 7.3 6.5 3.6 5.8 1.4 2.7 7.3 1.8 1.7 9.8 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.3 55.5 56.6 67.2 52.7 34.3 68.5 16.4 5.9 63.5 18.9 5.9 LnGrp LOS D E E E D C E B A E B A Approach Vol, veh/h 883 568 1194 1422 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.2 53.8 18.6 18.6 Approach LOS E D B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 71.9 13.8 24.0 11.6 70.6 16.5 21.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.9 54.9 14.6 23.6 11.8 52.0 10.5 27.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.5 20.8 9.5 17.6 7.5 27.1 7.6 14.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 7.6 0.1 1.8 0.0 9.1 0.1 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.4 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-34 343 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 -11 � � t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 135 601 213 71 559 178 237 790 51 188 1089 62 Future Volume (vph) 135 601 213 71 559 178 237 790 51 188 1089 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 190 200 100 50 150 150 195 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 817 587 676 1348 Travel Time (s) 10.1 7.3 9.2 18.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 21.0 35.8 35.8 15.2 30.0 30.0 18.0 52.5 52.5 16.5 51.0 51.0 Total Split (%) 17.5% 29.8% 29.8% 12.7% 25.0% 25.0% 15.0% 43.8% 43.8% 13.8% 42.5% 42.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 01 I Q 2 IF f"'o3 -1"04 05 0,3 'R' - 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-35 344 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 601 213 71 559 178 237 790 51 188 1089 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 601 213 71 559 178 237 790 51 188 1089 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 821 1.00 1.00 669 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1.00 1757 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 238 No 403 155 No 328 379 No 768 336 No 744 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 138 613 217 72 570 182 242 806 52 192 1111 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 165 821 348 92 669 283 300 1812 768 249 1757 744 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 3365 3642 1543 3365 3642 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 613 217 72 570 182 242 806 52 192 1111 63 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1682 1821 1543 1682 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 18.8 15.2 4.9 18.2 13.1 8.5 17.1 2.1 6.7 27.3 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.4 18.8 15.2 4.9 18.2 13.1 8.5 17.1 2.1 6.7 27.3 2.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 165 821 348 92 669 283 300 1812 768 249 1757 744 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.75 0.62 0.78 0.85 0.64 0.81 0.44 0.07 0.77 0.63 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 238 950 403 155 774 328 379 1812 768 336 1757 744 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.4 43.3 41.9 56.1 47.4 45.3 53.6 19.5 15.7 54.6 23.1 16.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.7 2.8 2.3 13.4 8.1 3.4 9.8 0.8 0.2 7.4 1.7 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.6 8.4 5.7 2.4 8.6 5.1 3.9 6.9 0.7 3.0 11.2 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.1 46.1 44.2 69.5 55.6 48.7 63.5 20.3 15.9 62.0 24.9 17.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E E D E C B E C B Approach Vol, veh/h 968 824 1100 1366 Approach Delay, s/veh 48.9 55.3 29.6 29.7 Approach LOS D E C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 64.2 10.9 31.6 15.2 62.4 15.9 26.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 48.0 10.7 31.3 13.5 46.5 16.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 8.7 19.1 6.9 20.8 10.5 29.3 11.4 20.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 5.6 0.0 3.2 0.2 6.9 0.1 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.0 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-36 345 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 30 760 101 45 654 130 79 958 67 102 1347 53 Future Volume (vph) 30 760 101 45 654 130 79 958 67 102 1347 53 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 210 120 220 150 200 150 170 150 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 710 640 1322 436 Travel Time (s) 9.7 8.7 18.0 5.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 11.5 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 11.5 36.0 36.0 12.0 36.5 11.6 11.6 60.4 60.4 11.6 60.4 Total Split (%) 9.6% 30.0% 30.0% 10.0% 30.4% 9.7% 9.7% 50.3% 50.3% 9.7% 50.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 11.5 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue .01 1 }02 'R'- 3� ? 05 05'R' �U �- Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-37 346 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 t 1797 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 760 101 45 654 130 79 958 67 102 1347 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 760 101 45 654 130 79 958 67 102 1347 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 888 1.00 1.00 803 1.00 1.00 1866 1.00 1.00 937 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 254 No 412 116 No 512 220 No 784 220 No 924 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 31 776 103 46 667 133 81 978 68 104 1374 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 254 888 376 87 803 434 203 1866 784 210 1790 70 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.54 0.53 0.06 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, vehlh 3469 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 3469 3642 1543 3469 3481 137 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 31 776 103 46 667 133 81 978 68 104 718 710 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1797 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 24.6 5.3 3.1 21.0 6.1 2.7 20.7 2.0 3.5 37.1 37.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 24.6 5.3 3.1 21.0 6.1 2.7 20.7 2.0 3.5 37.1 37.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 254 888 376 87 803 434 203 1866 784 210 937 924 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.87 0.27 0.53 0.83 0.31 0.40 0.52 0.09 0.49 0.77 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 254 971 412 116 986 512 220 1866 784 220 937 924 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.0 43.6 24.9 55.6 44.6 19.9 54.3 18.3 8.2 54.4 21.9 22.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 8.4 0.4 5.0 5.1 0.4 1.3 1.1 0.2 1.8 6.0 6.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.4 11.6 2.4 1.4 9.6 2.5 1.2 8.1 0.9 1.5 15.5 15.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.2 52.0 25.3 60.6 49.7 20.3 55.5 19.4 8.4 56.2 27.9 28.1 LnGrp LOS D D C E D C E B A E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 910 846 1127 1532 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.0 45.7 21.3 29.9 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 65.5 10.0 33.3 11.0 65.7 12.8 30.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 55.9 7.5 31.5 7.1 55.9 7.0 32.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.5 22.7 5.1 26.6 4.7 39.3 3.0 23.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 7.4 0.0 2.2 0.0 8.2 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.7 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-38 347 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t t t Traffic Volume (vph) 55 531 39 15 361 20 45 708 5 23 769 30 Future Volume (vph) 55 531 39 15 361 20 45 708 5 23 769 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 4534 1079 1013 510 Travel Time (s) 61.8 14.7 12.6 6.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 16.0 38.0 13.0 35.0 16.0 56.0 13.0 53.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 31.7% 10.8% 29.2% 13.3% 46.7% 10.8% 44.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases:17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue } i�5 05'R'- 0- 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-39 348 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1778 1734 t 1789 1734 t 1817 1734 t 1797 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 531 39 15 361 20 45 708 5 23 769 30 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 531 39 15 361 20 45 708 5 23 769 30 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 341 1.00 1.00 295 1.00 1.00 1036 1.00 1.00 1011 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 166 No 496 123 No 455 166 No 1088 123 No 1050 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 542 40 15 368 20 46 722 5 23 785 31 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 86 644 47 40 570 31 79 2109 15 54 1982 78 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.60 0.60 0.03 0.58 0.58 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3267 241 1734 3338 181 1734 3522 24 1734 3393 134 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 286 296 15 190 198 46 355 372 23 400 416 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1778 1734 1730 1789 1734 1730 1817 1734 1730 1797 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 19.1 19.2 1.0 12.3 12.4 3.1 12.4 12.4 1.6 15.0 15.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.8 19.1 19.2 1.0 12.3 12.4 3.1 12.4 12.4 1.6 15.0 15.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.07 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 86 341 350 40 295 305 79 1036 1088 54 1011 1050 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.84 0.84 0.38 0.64 0.65 0.58 0.34 0.34 0.42 0.40 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 166 483 496 123 440 455 166 1036 1088 123 1011 1050 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.0 46.4 46.4 57.8 46.4 46.4 56.1 12.1 12.2 57.1 13.5 13.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 8.9 9.0 5.8 2.3 2.3 6.5 0.9 0.9 5.2 1.2 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.8 8.7 9.0 0.5 5.3 5.5 1.5 4.4 4.6 0.7 5.4 5.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.2 55.3 55.4 63.6 48.7 48.7 62.7 13.1 13.0 62.3 14.7 14.6 LnGrp LOS E E E E D D E B B E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 638 403 773 839 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.1 49.3 16.0 15.9 Approach LOS E D B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 76.4 7.3 28.1 10.0 74.6 10.4 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.5 51.5 8.5 33.5 11.5 48.5 11.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.6 14.4 3.0 21.2 5.1 17.0 5.8 14.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 4.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 4.6 0.0 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.7 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-40 349 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 t r Traffic Volume (vph) 1 661 1370 33 95 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 661 1370 33 95 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 150 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25 Link Distance (ft) 207 1350 380 Travel Time (s) 3.5 23.0 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-41 350 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP AM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' + r Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 661 1370 33 95 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 661 1370 33 95 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 1 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1 674 1398 34 97 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1432 0 - 0 2074 1398 Stage 1 - - - - 1398 - Stage 2 - - 676 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - 5.6 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 3 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 474 - 100 174 Stage 1 - - 291 - Stage 2 - - 614 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 474 - 100 174 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 218 - Stage 1 - 290 Stage 2 - 614 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 34.6 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 474 - - 217 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - 0.451 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.6 0 - 34.6 HCM Lane LOS B A - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 2.2 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-42 351 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Additional Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt tt Traffic Volume (vph) 276 20 24 507 1048 105 Future Volume (vph) 276 20 24 507 1048 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 499 880 169 Travel Time (s) 13.6 12.0 2.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 4 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 23.2 23.2 36.8 36.8 36.8 Total Split (%) 38.7% 38.7% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None C -Max C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated ana Nnases: ia: Maaison tit. & main Access 7 06 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-43 352 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Additional Improvements t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 r 477 tt tt 1764 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 276 20 24 507 1048 105 Future Volume (veh/h) 276 20 24 507 1048 105 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 2259 1129 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 481 347 No No 1151 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 282 20 24 517 1069 107 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 342 304 347 2259 2073 207 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 477 3551 3267 318 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 282 20 24 517 582 594 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 477 1730 1730 1764 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 0.6 1.7 3.7 10.6 10.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.4 0.6 12.2 3.7 10.6 10.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 342 304 347 2259 1129 1151 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.07 0.07 0.23 0.52 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 541 481 347 2259 1129 1151 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.1 19.6 8.7 4.3 5.5 5.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.7 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.1 0.2 0.2 0.7 2.3 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.8 19.7 9.0 4.5 7.1 7.1 LnGrp LOS C B A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 302 541 1176 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.2 4.7 7.1 Approach LOS C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 43.7 16.3 43.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.3 18.7 32.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 14.2 11.4 12.6 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 3.1 0.6 7.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.6 HCM 6th LOS A Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-44 353 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-45 354 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib tt Traffic Volume (vph) 543 4 13 358 6 3 Future Volume (vph) 543 4 13 358 6 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 50 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 403 335 383 Travel Time (s) 5.5 4.6 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-45 354 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP AM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib HCM Lane LOS ) tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - Traffic Vol, veh/h 543 4 13 358 6 3 Future Vol, veh/h 543 4 13 358 6 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 50 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 590 4 14 389 7 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 594 0 815 297 Stage 1 - - - - 592 - Stage 2 - 223 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 978 315 699 Stage 1 - 516 - Stage 2 - 793 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 978 311 699 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 414 - Stage 1 - 516 Stage 2 - 782 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 12.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 479 - 978 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 - 0.014 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.7 - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS B - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-46 355 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-47 356 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 539 7 0 371 0 4 Future Volume (vph) 539 7 0 371 0 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 335 276 233 Travel Time (s) 4.6 3.8 6.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-47 356 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP AM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib 0 - - tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 539 7 0 371 0 4 Future Vol, veh/h 539 7 0 371 0 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 586 8 0 403 0 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - 297 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 699 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 699 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 699 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-48 357 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Additional Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 10 0 783 1143 14 Future Volume (vph) 0 10 0 783 1143 14 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 210 224 288 Travel Time (s) 5.7 3.1 3.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-49 358 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP AM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 10 0 783 1143 14 Future Vol, veh/h 0 10 0 783 1143 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 11 0 851 1242 15 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 629 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.94 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 425 0 - Stage 1 0 - 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 425 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.7 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 425 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.7 - HCM Lane LOS B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-50 359 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Additional Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1 1 647 1141 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 1 1 647 1141 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 25 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 306 596 577 Travel Time (s) 8.3 10.2 9.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-51 360 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP AM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y ) tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 647 1141 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 647 1141 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 150 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 1 660 1164 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1497 583 1165 0 - 0 Stage 1 1165 - - - - - Stage 2 332 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 113 456 595 - Stage 1 259 - - Stage 2 699 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 113 456 595 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 113 - - Stage 1 258 - - Stage 2 699 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 25.1 0 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 595 - 181 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.011 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 - 25.1 - HCM Lane LOS B - D - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-52 361 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Future Volume (vph) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 24.0 28.1 18.4 22.5 32.0 16.9 41.5 41.5 32.0 56.6 56.6 Total Split (%) 20.0% 23.4% 15.3% 18.8% 26.7% 14.1% 34.6% 34.6% 26.7% 47.2% 47.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 87.9 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 t02'R' 01 03 X04 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-53 362 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1720 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Future Volume (veh/h) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 364 1.00 1.00 500 1.00 1.00 1067 1.00 1.00 1502 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 282 No 362 201 No 594 189 No 476 407 No 670 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 298 232 46 141 274 698 82 1143 87 421 1066 357 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 282 608 118 167 500 585 189 1067 476 407 1502 670 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.23 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 2887 563 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 298 137 141 141 274 698 82 1143 87 421 1066 357 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1720 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.5 8.2 8.4 9.6 8.8 14.7 5.3 37.0 3.7 28.2 30.2 11.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.5 8.2 8.4 9.6 8.8 14.7 5.3 37.0 3.7 28.2 30.2 11.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 282 364 362 167 500 585 189 1067 476 407 1502 670 V/C Ratio(X) 1.06 0.38 0.39 0.84 0.55 1.19 0.43 1.07 0.18 1.03 0.71 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 282 364 362 201 519 594 189 1067 476 407 1502 670 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.3 40.6 40.7 53.3 47.7 15.4 50.0 41.5 17.2 45.9 27.8 8.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 69.5 0.6 0.7 23.3 1.1 102.8 1.6 48.8 0.8 53.6 2.9 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 13.6 3.4 3.5 5.1 3.8 24.0 2.3 22.1 1.9 17.6 12.2 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 119.8 41.3 41.4 76.6 48.8 118.2 51.6 90.3 18.1 99.5 30.6 11.4 LnGrp LOS F D D E D F D F B F C B Approach Vol, veh/h 576 1113 1312 1844 Approach Delay, s/veh 81.9 95.9 83.1 42.6 Approach LOS F F F D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.7 41.5 16.1 29.8 17.6 56.6 24.0 21.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.5 37.0 13.9 23.6 12.4 52.1 19.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 30.2 39.0 11.6 10.4 7.3 32.2 21.5 16.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 8.2 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 70.5 HCM 6th LOS E Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-54 363 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Future Volume (vph) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 15.4 23.0 15.0 22.6 37.0 16.9 45.0 45.0 37.0 65.1 65.1 Total Split (%) 12.8% 19.2% 12.5% 18.8% 30.8% 14.1% 37.5% 37.5% 30.8% 54.3% 54.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 t02'R' 1 03 4 06 'R' 05 ";*703 =�J The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-55 364 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 1� 1768 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Future Volume (veh/h) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 522 1.00 1.00 1168 1.00 1.00 1747 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 315 No 273 152 No 651 179 No 521 470 No 779 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 298 232 46 141 274 698 82 1143 87 421 1066 357 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 315 228 45 152 522 651 179 1168 521 470 1747 779 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.27 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow,vehlh 3469 1476 293 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 298 0 278 141 274 698 82 1143 87 421 1066 357 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 0 1768 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.3 0.0 18.5 9.7 8.8 11.5 5.3 39.2 3.6 28.0 26.4 11.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.3 0.0 18.5 9.7 8.8 11.5 5.3 39.2 3.6 28.0 26.4 11.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 315 0 273 152 522 651 179 1168 521 470 1747 779 V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.00 1.02 0.93 0.52 1.07 0.46 0.98 0.17 0.90 0.61 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 315 0 273 152 522 651 179 1168 521 470 1747 779 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.3 0.0 50.8 54.4 47.0 16.4 50.6 39.3 15.9 42.1 21.2 8.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 36.5 0.0 59.6 52.3 1.0 56.3 1.8 21.7 0.7 19.5 1.6 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.9 0.0 12.4 6.3 3.7 20.0 2.3 19.1 1.8 14.0 10.2 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 90.8 0.0 110.4 106.7 48.0 72.7 52.5 61.0 16.6 61.7 22.8 10.4 LnGrp LOS F A F F D F D E B E C B Approach Vol, veh/h 576 1113 1312 1844 Approach Delay, s/veh 100.2 70.9 57.6 29.3 Approach LOS F E E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.0 45.0 15.0 23.0 16.9 65.1 15.4 22.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 40.5 10.5 18.5 12.4 60.6 10.9 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 30.0 41.2 11.7 20.5 7.3 28.4 12.3 13.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.7 0.0 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.9 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-56 365 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r A tt r tt Traffic Volume (vph) 365 332 1 1712 313 146 1414 Future Volume (vph) 365 332 1 1712 313 146 1414 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 140 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 767 818 Travel Time (s) 71.6 10.5 11.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Detector Phase 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 33.0 33.0 11.5 70.0 70.0 17.0 75.5 Total Split (%) 27.5% 27.5% 9.6% 58.3% 58.3% 14.2% 62.9% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. t02'R' 01 03 7 06 'R' �" r► o 5 os Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-57 366 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Movement WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1734 r A tt r 1734 tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 365 332 1 1712 313 146 1414 Future Volume (veh/h) 365 332 1 1712 313 146 1414 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1903 1.00 1.00 2408 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 373 No 849 195 No Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 372 339 1747 319 149 1443 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 412 366 1903 849 195 2408 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.55 0.55 0.11 0.70 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 3551 1543 1734 3551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 372 339 1747 319 149 1443 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1730 1543 1734 1730 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.0 25.8 55.1 4.3 10.0 26.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 25.8 55.1 4.3 10.0 26.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 412 366 1903 849 195 2408 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.93 0.92 0.38 0.76 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 419 373 1903 849 195 2408 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.4 44.7 24.5 1.5 51.7 9.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.1 22.3 8.6 1.3 16.2 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.2 11.7 22.0 3.9 5.1 8.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.6 67.0 33.1 2.8 67.9 10.6 LnGrp LOS E E C A E B Approach Vol, veh/h 711 2066 1592 Approach Delay, s/veh 64.1 28.4 16.0 Approach LOS E C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.5 70.0 87.5 32.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 65.5 71.0 28.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 12.0 57.1 28.1 27.8 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 6.7 13.4 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-58 367 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 84 521 1231 114 450 470 804 1503 229 263 969 51 Future Volume (vph) 84 521 1231 114 450 470 804 1503 229 263 969 51 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 160 150 910 150 160 120 305 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 80 120 120 100 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5080 840 924 2398 Travel Time (s) 63.0 10.4 12.6 32.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 11.5 23.1 13.2 24.8 24.0 35.4 59.7 59.7 24.0 48.3 Total Split (%) 9.6% 19.3% 11.0% 20.7% 20.0% 29.5% 49.8% 49.8% 20.0% 40.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 06 03 L�"05 I Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-59 368 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1734 t 1789 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 84 521 1231 114 450 470 804 1503 229 263 969 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 84 521 1231 114 450 470 804 1503 229 263 969 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 536 1.00 1.00 585 1.00 1.00 1592 1.00 1.00 631 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 101 No 126 No 512 866 No 710 282 No 653 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 86 532 0 116 459 480 820 1534 234 268 989 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 101 536 0.0 126 585 512 866 1592 710 282 1220 64 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.15 0.00 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.46 0.46 0.16 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 1734 3344 176 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 86 532 0 116 459 480 820 1534 234 268 512 529 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1734 1730 1789 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 18.4 0.0 8.0 15.2 12.6 28.7 51.6 8.4 18.4 32.0 32.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 18.4 0.0 8.0 15.2 12.6 28.7 51.6 8.4 18.4 32.0 32.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 101 536 126 585 512 866 1592 710 282 631 653 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.99 0.92 0.78 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.33 0.95 0.81 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 536 126 585 512 866 1592 710 282 631 653 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.0 50.6 0.0 55.3 47.8 24.6 43.7 31.4 10.9 49.8 34.4 34.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.3 9.9 0.0 56.9 6.9 25.2 18.9 15.4 1.2 40.4 10.8 10.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 8.3 0.0 5.3 6.8 15.8 13.6 23.0 3.9 10.8 14.5 14.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.3 60.5 0.0 112.2 54.7 49.8 62.6 46.9 12.1 90.1 45.2 44.8 LnGrp LOS E E F D D E D B F D D Approach Vol, veh/h 618 A 1055 2588 1309 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.7 58.8 48.7 54.2 Approach LOS E E D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 59.7 13.2 23.1 35.4 48.3 11.5 24.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 55.2 8.7 18.6 30.9 43.8 7.0 20.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 20.4 53.6 10.0 20.4 30.7 34.0 7.9 17.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.1 0.0 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-60 369 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 135 696 139 123 940 224 285 1395 180 223 979 139 Future Volume (vph) 135 696 139 123 940 224 285 1395 180 223 979 139 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 435 50 200 325 160 160 255 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 105 120 140 160 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 1169 798 1237 1379 Travel Time (s) 17.7 9.9 16.9 18.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 31.5 31.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 14.6 36.9 36.9 16.8 39.1 39.1 18.0 53.0 53.0 13.3 48.3 48.3 Total Split (%) 12.2% 30.8% 30.8% 14.0% 32.6% 32.6% 15.0% 44.2% 44.2% 11.1% 40.3% 40.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 65.5 (55%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 t0 2 01 D -IW;4 rR'- C 057 i3'R' Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-61 370 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 696 139 123 940 224 285 1395 180 223 979 139 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 696 139 123 940 224 285 1395 180 223 979 139 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 987 1.00 1.00 998 1.00 1.00 1398 1.00 1.00 1263 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 146 No 440 178 No 445 379 No 624 247 No 563 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 138 710 142 126 959 229 291 1423 184 228 999 142 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 146 987 440 151 998 445 379 1398 624 247 1263 563 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 710 142 126 959 229 291 1423 184 228 999 142 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 22.1 6.4 8.6 32.7 11.8 10.1 48.5 7.0 8.1 30.9 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 22.1 6.4 8.6 32.7 11.8 10.1 48.5 7.0 8.1 30.9 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 146 987 440 151 998 445 379 1398 624 247 1263 563 V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.72 0.32 0.83 0.96 0.51 0.77 1.02 0.29 0.92 0.79 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 146 987 440 178 998 445 379 1398 624 247 1263 563 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.7 38.6 18.4 53.9 42.0 22.4 51.7 35.7 12.8 55.3 34.0 15.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 58.0 4.5 1.9 24.4 20.5 4.2 9.3 28.5 1.2 37.3 5.1 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.4 9.7 3.2 4.6 15.9 4.5 4.6 24.4 3.4 4.6 13.1 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 112.7 43.1 20.3 78.3 62.6 26.6 61.0 64.3 14.0 92.6 39.1 16.0 LnGrp LOS F D C E E C E F B F D B Approach Vol, veh/h 990 1314 1898 1369 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.5 57.8 58.9 45.6 Approach LOS D E E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 53.0 15.0 38.7 18.0 48.3 14.6 39.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.8 48.5 12.3 32.4 13.5 43.8 10.1 34.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 10.1 50.5 10.6 24.1 12.1 32.9 11.5 34.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.1 5.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.7 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-62 371 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r )) ttt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 264 822 195 78 909 439 204 1546 73 352 1257 277 Future Volume (vph) 264 822 195 78 909 439 204 1546 73 352 1257 277 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 210 300 240 290 220 200 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 579 1049 1270 550 Travel Time (s) 8.8 14.3 17.3 7.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 7 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.0 44.8 44.8 13.2 36.0 11.5 12.5 44.2 44.2 11.5 49.5 49.5 Total Split (s) 22.0 44.8 44.8 13.2 36.0 17.4 12.5 44.6 44.6 17.4 49.5 49.5 Total Split (%) 18.3% 37.3% 37.3% 11.0% 30.0% 14.5% 10.4% 37.2% 37.2% 14.5% 41.3% 41.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max None None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue 1 XO2 'R'- T 04 03 5 06 'R' os S3 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-63 372 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r )) ttt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 264 822 195 78 909 439 204 1546 73 352 1257 277 Future Volume (veh/h) 264 822 195 78 909 439 204 1546 73 352 1257 277 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1213 1.00 1.00 908 1.00 1.00 1661 1.00 1.00 1298 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 253 No 541 126 No 571 224 No 516 362 No 579 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 269 839 199 80 928 448 208 1578 74 359 1283 283 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 253 1213 541 100 908 571 224 1661 516 362 1298 579 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.42 0.42 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.40 0.40 0.13 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 4972 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 269 839 199 80 928 448 208 1578 74 359 1283 283 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1657 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.5 23.8 8.3 5.5 31.5 13.1 7.4 36.8 2.9 12.8 44.1 10.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.5 23.8 8.3 5.5 31.5 13.1 7.4 36.8 2.9 12.8 44.1 10.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 253 1213 541 100 908 571 224 1661 516 362 1298 579 V/C Ratio(X) 1.06 0.69 0.37 0.80 1.02 0.78 0.93 0.95 0.14 0.99 0.99 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 1213 541 126 908 571 224 1661 516 362 1298 579 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.5 29.5 15.7 55.1 41.1 15.5 54.9 35.0 16.0 52.2 32.7 10.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 74.4 3.3 1.9 23.9 35.5 10.4 40.5 13.0 0.6 45.2 22.4 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.3 9.4 3.8 3.0 16.6 6.5 4.2 15.1 1.4 7.3 20.0 5.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 123.9 32.7 17.6 79.0 76.6 25.9 95.4 48.0 16.6 97.4 55.2 13.3 LnGrp LOS F C B E F C F D B F E B Approach Vol, veh/h 1307 1456 1860 1925 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.2 61.1 52.0 56.9 Approach LOS D E D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 46.6 12.5 49.5 22.0 36.0 17.4 44.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 40.3 8.0 45.0 17.5 31.5 12.9 40.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.5 25.8 9.4 46.1 19.5 33.5 14.8 38.8 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.9 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-64 373 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t rr tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 31 24 2 34 11 1395 6 251 53 1747 315 2 Future Volume (vph) 31 24 2 34 11 1395 6 251 53 1747 315 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 110 110 140 140 150 150 240 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 0 110 90 140 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 531 5080 436 1277 Travel Time (s) 6.6 63.0 5.4 15.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 7 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 11.5 22.9 22.9 11.5 22.9 63.1 22.5 22.5 22.5 63.1 63.1 63.1 Total Split (%) 9.6% 19.1% 19.1% 9.6% 19.1% 52.6% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 52.6% 52.6% 52.6% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None None Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 I 1 -1"D 2 'R'- 9 03 ■ 04 i 5 06 i3- s33 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-65 374 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 t rr 1734 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 24 2 34 11 1395 6 251 53 1747 315 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 24 2 34 11 1395 6 251 53 1747 315 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 312 1.00 1.00 316 1.00 1.00 519 1.00 1.00 1690 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 101 No 265 101 No 1797 260 No 232 1643 No 754 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 32 24 2 35 11 1423 6 256 54 1783 321 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 66 312 265 70 316 1797 260 519 232 1643 1690 754 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.49 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 2716 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 32 24 2 35 11 1423 6 256 54 1783 321 2 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1358 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 1.3 0.1 2.4 0.6 20.8 0.4 8.1 3.7 58.6 6.3 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 1.3 0.1 2.4 0.6 20.8 0.4 8.1 3.7 58.6 6.3 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 66 312 265 70 316 1797 260 519 232 1643 1690 754 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.08 0.01 0.50 0.03 0.79 0.02 0.49 0.23 1.09 0.19 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 312 265 101 316 1797 260 519 232 1643 1690 754 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.5 41.7 41.2 56.4 41.2 14.4 43.5 46.8 44.9 30.7 17.3 15.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.3 0.5 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.8 0.2 3.3 2.3 49.2 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.0 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.3 11.1 0.2 3.6 1.5 32.2 2.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.9 42.2 41.3 58.3 41.3 15.3 43.7 50.1 47.3 79.9 17.6 15.7 LnGrp LOS E D D E D B D D D F B B Approach Vol, veh/h 58 1469 316 2106 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.0 16.5 49.5 70.3 Approach LOS D B D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 25.1 22.5 63.1 9.1 25.3 63.1 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 18.4 18.0 58.6 7.0 18.4 58.6 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.4 3.3 2.4 8.3 4.2 22.8 60.6 10.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.4 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-66 375 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r 4 r 4 r Traffic Volume (vph) 122 553 547 34 885 565 593 1046 99 258 1179 216 Future Volume (vph) 122 553 547 34 885 565 593 1046 99 258 1179 216 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 55 Link Distance (ft) 709 813 334 462 Travel Time (s) 9.7 11.1 4.6 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-67 376 MITIG8 - 2040WP PM Thu May 25, 2023 19:33:32 Page 1-1 Club at Coral Mountain TIA (JN:15455) 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report FHWA Roundabout Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.1 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Lanes: 2 2 3 3 Volume Module: Base Vol: 593 1046 99 258 1179 216 122 553 547 34 885 565 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 593 1046 99 258 1179 216 122 553 547 34 885 565 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 593 1046 99 258 1179 216 122 553 547 34 885 565 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.00 PHF Volume: 605 1067 101 263 1203 220 124 564 0 35 903 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 605 1067 101 263 1203 220 124 564 0 35 903 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 605 1067 101 263 1203 220 124 564 0 35 903 0 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I PCE Module: AutoPCE: 605 1067 101 263 1203 220 124 564 0 35 903 0 TruckPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ComboPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BicyclePCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adj Volume: 605 1067 101 263 1203 220 124 564 0 35 903 0 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours << CircVolume: 263 605 1466 1672 MaxVolume: 2234 1988 xxxxxx xxxxxx PedVolume: 0 0 0 0 AdjMaxVol: 2234 1988 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachVol: 1773 1687 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachV/C: 0.79 0.85 1.00 1.00 ApproachDel: 7.4 10.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: A B Queue: 9.9 12.6 xxxx xxxx Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 2-68 377 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r ) tt ) tt Traffic Volume (vph) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1834 7 23 1673 68 Future Volume (vph) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1834 7 23 1673 68 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 160 0 180 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 25 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 509 561 1820 1343 Travel Time (s) 13.9 15.3 22.6 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 40.5 18.0 39.5 Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 54.0 18.0 54.0 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 15.0% 45.0% 15.0% 45.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None C -Min Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 30 (25%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo } i31 102 R' -11"04 00 5 i3,3,%'. 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-69 378 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 45 4 r 41 4 r ) tt 1818 ) tt 1785 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1834 7 23 1673 68 Future Volume (veh/h) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1834 7 23 1673 68 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1494 1.00 1.00 1640 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 97 No 540 94 No 540 173 No 819 173 No 883 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 67 2 21 9 1 43 3 1871 7 23 1707 69 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 73 1 514 66 4 514 17 2304 9 93 2425 98 Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.01 0.45 0.45 0.11 0.99 0.99 Sat Flow, vehlh 41 4 1543 28 13 1543 1734 5113 19 1734 4902 198 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 69 0 21 10 0 43 3 1213 665 23 1154 622 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 45 0 1543 41 0 1543 1734 1657 1818 1734 1657 1785 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.2 38.0 38.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 40.0 0.0 1.1 39.7 0.0 2.3 0.2 38.0 38.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 74 0 514 71 0 514 17 1494 819 93 1640 883 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.00 0.08 0.18 0.81 0.81 0.25 0.70 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 97 0 540 94 0 540 173 1494 819 173 1640 883 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.54 0.54 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.3 0.0 27.0 46.2 0.0 27.4 59.0 28.6 28.6 51.4 0.3 0.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 69.5 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.1 10.9 4.9 8.6 1.6 1.4 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.5 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.1 14.7 17.0 0.6 0.5 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 128.9 0.0 27.1 48.1 0.0 27.6 69.8 33.5 37.2 52.9 1.7 2.9 LnGrp LOS F A C D A C E C D D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 90 53 1881 1799 Approach Delay, s/veh 105.1 31.5 34.8 2.8 Approach LOS F C C A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 60.8 46.8 7.1 66.0 46.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 46.5 42.0 12.0 46.5 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.5 40.0 42.0 2.2 3.5 41.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.4 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-70 379 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 362 506 152 382 584 300 159 1498 285 408 1246 285 Future Volume (vph) 362 506 152 382 584 300 159 1498 285 408 1246 285 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 245 100 105 0 360 220 280 230 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 45 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 693 995 1343 697 Travel Time (s) 9.5 15.1 16.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 18.0 31.5 31.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (s) 18.0 34.0 34.0 23.0 39.0 39.0 20.0 43.0 43.0 20.0 43.0 43.0 Total Split (%) 15.0% 28.3% 28.3% 19.2% 32.5% 32.5% 16.7% 35.8% 35.8% 16.7% 35.8% 35.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Min C -Min C -Min None C -Min C -Min None None None None None None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 'I2\001?'R'• 05 06 S3- S33 r'. Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-71 380 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1682 tt r 1682 tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 506 152 382 584 300 159 1498 285 408 1246 285 Future Volume (veh/h) 362 506 152 382 584 300 159 1498 285 408 1246 285 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 760 1.00 1.00 865 1.00 1.00 1471 1.00 1.00 1579 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 336 No 341 477 No 405 202 No 457 393 No 490 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 369 516 155 390 596 306 162 1529 291 416 1271 291 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 336 760 339 439 865 386 186 1471 457 393 1579 490 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.44 0.44 0.17 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow,vehlh 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 1734 4972 1543 3365 4972 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 369 516 155 390 596 306 162 1529 291 416 1271 291 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1734 1657 1543 1682 1657 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.0 15.5 9.5 13.5 17.4 14.3 10.9 35.5 11.5 14.0 26.1 16.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 15.5 9.5 13.5 17.4 14.3 10.9 35.5 11.5 14.0 26.1 16.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 336 760 339 439 865 386 186 1471 457 393 1579 490 V/C Ratio(X) 1.10 0.68 0.46 0.89 0.69 0.79 0.87 1.04 0.64 1.06 0.80 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 336 764 341 477 908 405 202 1471 457 393 1579 490 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.0 36.6 34.6 47.4 33.6 16.0 49.5 33.4 12.2 49.5 28.3 25.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 77.5 4.8 4.4 16.5 4.5 15.4 23.8 32.3 2.8 62.1 3.3 2.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.2 6.2 3.7 6.1 6.8 5.7 5.5 15.5 3.5 8.6 8.3 5.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 128.5 41.4 39.0 63.9 38.0 31.3 73.3 65.7 15.0 111.6 31.6 28.1 LnGrp LOS F D D E D C E F B F C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1040 1292 1982 1978 Approach Delay, s/veh 72.0 44.2 58.9 47.9 Approach LOS E D E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.5 43.0 21.6 33.9 18.9 45.6 18.0 37.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 * 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 * 36 17.0 26.5 14.0 35.5 12.0 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 16.0 37.5 15.5 17.5 12.9 28.1 14.0 19.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 6.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-72 381 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r t r Traffic Volume (vph) 967 790 2 2 699 300 2 2 2 684 2 401 Future Volume (vph) 967 790 2 2 699 300 2 2 2 684 2 401 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 150 0 150 150 Storage Lanes 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25 40 Link Distance (ft) 1137 661 281 437 Travel Time (s) 19.4 11.3 7.7 7.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 8 8 7 4 5 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 Total Split (s) 39.0 57.0 11.5 29.5 29.5 22.5 22.5 29.0 51.5 39.0 Total Split (%) 32.5% 47.5% 9.6% 24.6% 24.6% 18.8% 18.8% 24.2% 42.9% 32.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max None None None Max Max Max Max None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. '1 2'R' �5 i35 �3 0- Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-73 382 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1820 1734 tt r 1429 0 0 1734 t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 967 790 2 2 699 300 2 2 2 684 2 401 Future Volume (veh/h) 967 790 2 2 699 300 2 2 2 684 2 401 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 851 1.00 1.00 759 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 713 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 997 No 895 101 No 322 254 No 0 708 No 1048 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 987 806 2 2 713 306 2 2 2 698 2 409 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 997 1742 4 7 759 322 93 90 71 708 713 1048 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow,vehlh 3469 3541 9 1734 3642 1543 352 600 476 3469 1821 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 987 394 414 2 713 306 6 0 0 698 2 409 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1820 1734 1821 1543 1429 0 0 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 34.0 18.0 18.0 0.1 23.1 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.1 13.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 34.0 18.0 18.0 0.1 23.1 15.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.1 13.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 997 851 895 7 759 322 254 0 0 708 713 1048 V/C Ratio(X) 0.99 0.46 0.46 0.31 0.94 0.95 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 997 851 895 101 759 322 254 0 0 708 713 1048 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.6 20.0 20.0 59.6 46.8 19.7 43.5 0.0 0.0 47.6 22.2 8.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.9 1.8 1.7 24.4 19.5 37.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 30.5 0.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 17.7 7.4 7.7 0.1 12.3 8.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 4.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.5 21.8 21.8 84.0 66.2 57.1 43.7 0.0 0.0 78.1 22.2 9.5 LnGrp LOS E C C F E E D A A E C A Approach Vol, veh/h 1795 1021 6 1109 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.5 63.5 43.7 52.7 Approach LOS D E D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.0 63.5 51.5 39.0 29.5 29.0 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 52.5 47.0 34.5 25.0 24.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.1 20.0 15.9 36.0 25.1 26.1 2.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 5.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.1 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-74 383 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t r t t Traffic Volume (vph) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Future Volume (vph) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 21.0 39.5 11.5 30.0 28.0 28.6 41.0 28.0 40.4 Total Split (%) 17.5% 32.9% 9.6% 25.0% 23.3% 23.8% 34.2% 23.3% 33.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 11: Monroe St.& Avenue 60/60th Avenue 01 102 SRI. �? X43_4 5 i35'R'- i33 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-75 384 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1543 1734 t r 1734 t 1802 1734 t 1654 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Future Volume (veh/h) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 528 1.00 1.00 387 1.00 1.00 526 1.00 1.00 518 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 238 No 471 101 No 630 348 No 548 340 No 495 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 278 588 595 44 427 331 329 1082 33 389 631 239 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 238 528 471 78 387 630 348 1043 32 340 734 278 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 3428 105 1734 2455 929 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 278 588 595 44 427 331 329 546 569 389 445 425 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1802 1734 1730 1654 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.5 36.6 36.6 3.0 25.5 19.4 22.4 36.5 36.5 23.5 29.1 29.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.5 36.6 36.6 3.0 25.5 19.4 22.4 36.5 36.5 23.5 29.1 29.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.56 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 238 528 471 78 387 630 348 526 548 340 518 495 V/C Ratio(X) 1.17 1.11 1.26 0.57 1.10 0.53 0.94 1.04 1.04 1.15 0.86 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 238 528 471 101 387 630 348 526 548 340 518 495 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.8 41.7 41.7 56.2 47.3 26.7 47.3 41.8 41.8 48.3 39.7 39.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 110.4 74.3 134.7 6.3 76.7 0.8 34.0 49.3 48.6 94.3 16.8 17.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 14.3 25.8 30.9 1.4 19.4 6.9 12.6 21.9 22.7 18.6 14.1 13.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 162.2 116.0 176.4 62.5 123.9 27.5 81.3 91.1 90.3 142.6 56.4 57.1 LnGrp LOS F F F E F C F F F F E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1461 802 1444 1259 Approach Delay, s/veh 149.4 80.8 88.6 83.3 Approach LOS F F F F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.0 41.0 9.9 41.1 28.6 40.4 21.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 36.5 7.0 35.0 24.1 35.9 16.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 25.5 38.5 5.0 38.6 24.4 31.1 18.5 27.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 103.9 HCM 6th LOS F Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-76 385 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r t tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Future Volume (vph) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 24.2 34.9 32.6 11.9 22.6 31.6 32.6 41.6 31.6 40.6 40.6 Total Split (%) 20.2% 29.1% 27.2% 9.9% 18.8% 26.3% 27.2% 34.7% 26.3% 33.8% 33.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue 13 i35 S35 'R' i33 i3 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-77 386 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Additional Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 t 1802 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Future Volume (veh/h) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 875 1.00 1.00 494 1.00 1.00 578 1.00 1.00 1229 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 285 No 708 107 No 581 406 No 571 392 No 521 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 278 588 595 44 427 331 329 1082 33 389 631 239 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 285 875 708 94 494 569 357 1115 34 392 1229 521 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.21 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3516 107 1734 3642 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 278 588 595 44 427 331 329 560 555 389 631 239 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1802 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.1 18.4 28.2 3.0 14.5 11.6 22.3 36.4 36.4 26.9 16.7 9.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.1 18.4 28.2 3.0 14.5 11.6 22.3 36.4 36.4 26.9 16.7 9.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 285 875 708 94 494 569 357 578 571 392 1229 521 V/C Ratio(X) 0.98 0.67 0.84 0.47 0.86 0.58 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.51 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 285 877 708 107 522 581 406 578 571 392 1229 521 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.9 40.4 14.5 55.1 50.3 12.7 46.7 40.4 40.4 46.4 31.9 12.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 46.7 2.0 9.0 3.6 13.5 1.4 24.7 30.8 31.1 43.6 1.5 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 11.7 7.8 10.4 1.4 7.0 3.7 11.7 20.3 20.1 15.8 7.3 3.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 96.6 42.4 23.5 58.6 63.8 14.1 71.4 71.2 71.5 89.9 33.4 15.6 LnGrp LOS F D C E E B E E E F C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1461 802 1444 1259 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.0 43.0 71.4 47.5 Approach LOS D D E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 31.6 42.6 11.0 34.8 29.2 45.0 24.2 21.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.1 37.1 7.4 30.4 28.1 36.1 19.7 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 28.9 38.4 5.0 30.2 24.3 18.7 21.1 16.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 4.3 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.0 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-78 387 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Future Volume (vph) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 732 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 16.6 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 19.2 25.0 32.1 37.9 19.6 43.9 43.9 19.0 43.3 Total Split (%) 16.0% 20.8% 26.8% 31.6% 16.3% 36.6% 36.6% 15.8% 36.1% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 1 I } Q2 'R'- o? -004 i=5 05 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-79 388 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1721 1734 t 1656 1734 tt r 1734 t 1735 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Future Volume (veh/h) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 296 1.00 1.00 515 1.00 1.00 1136 1.00 1.00 559 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 212 No 294 399 No 493 218 No 507 210 No 561 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 522 101 420 521 194 215 1118 286 210 945 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 179 494 95 399 735 272 218 1136 507 210 965 155 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 2893 557 1734 2471 916 1734 3460 1543 1734 2985 480 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 311 312 420 364 351 215 1118 286 210 548 549 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1721 1734 1730 1656 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1735 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 20.5 20.5 27.6 22.5 22.7 14.8 38.5 18.3 14.5 37.6 37.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 20.5 20.5 27.6 22.5 22.7 14.8 38.5 18.3 14.5 37.6 37.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 179 296 294 399 515 493 218 1136 507 210 559 561 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 1.05 1.06 1.05 0.71 0.71 0.99 0.98 0.56 1.00 0.98 0.98 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 212 296 294 399 515 493 218 1136 507 210 559 561 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.9 49.8 49.8 46.2 37.5 37.6 52.3 40.0 33.2 52.8 40.2 40.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.0 67.0 69.4 59.6 4.4 4.8 56.5 23.1 4.5 62.7 33.2 33.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.6 14.0 14.1 18.4 10.1 9.8 9.6 19.0 7.5 9.7 20.2 20.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.9 116.7 119.1 105.8 42.0 42.4 108.8 63.1 37.7 115.4 73.4 73.5 LnGrp LOS E F F F D D F E D F E E Approach Vol, veh/h 776 1135 1619 1307 Approach Delay, s/veh 109.8 65.7 64.7 80.2 Approach LOS F E E F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 43.9 32.1 25.0 19.6 43.3 16.9 40.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 39.4 27.6 20.5 15.1 38.8 14.7 33.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 16.5 40.5 29.6 22.5 16.8 39.6 12.4 24.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 76.4 HCM 6th LOS E Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-80 389 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r t tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Future Volume (vph) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 732 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 16.6 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 19.2 24.0 24.0 37.0 41.8 13.6 46.0 37.0 13.0 45.4 Total Split (%) 16.0% 20.0% 20.0% 30.8% 34.8% 11.3% 38.3% 30.8% 10.8% 37.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases:} 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 01 05r 06 rR'- - 03 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-81 390 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 t 1656 1682 tt r 1682 t 1733 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Future Volume (veh/h) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 562 1.00 1.00 546 1.00 1.00 1311 1.00 1.00 646 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 212 No 251 470 No 523 255 No 952 238 No 615 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 522 101 420 521 194 215 1118 286 210 945 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 179 562 251 445 780 289 255 1311 952 238 1086 175 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.26 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.36 0.36 0.07 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 2471 916 3365 3642 1543 3365 3061 492 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 522 101 420 364 351 215 1118 286 210 562 535 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1656 1682 1821 1543 1682 1821 1733 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 17.9 7.0 28.5 21.9 22.1 7.6 34.0 10.5 7.4 34.5 34.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 17.9 7.0 28.5 21.9 22.1 7.6 34.0 10.5 7.4 34.5 34.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 179 562 251 445 546 523 255 1311 952 238 646 615 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.93 0.40 0.94 0.67 0.67 0.84 0.85 0.30 0.88 0.87 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 212 562 251 470 546 523 255 1311 952 238 646 615 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.9 49.6 45.0 43.7 35.6 35.6 54.7 35.5 10.8 55.2 36.1 36.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.0 21.9 1.0 27.1 3.1 3.3 21.8 7.2 0.8 29.4 14.8 15.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.6 9.1 2.8 15.5 9.7 9.3 3.9 15.5 3.7 4.0 17.1 16.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.9 71.5 46.1 70.8 38.6 38.9 76.5 42.7 11.6 84.6 50.9 51.6 LnGrp LOS E E D E D D E D B F D D Approach Vol, veh/h 776 1135 1619 1307 Approach Delay, s/veh 69.2 50.7 41.7 56.6 Approach LOS E D D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 47.7 35.3 24.0 13.6 47.1 16.9 42.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.5 41.5 32.5 19.5 9.1 40.9 14.7 37.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 9.4 36.0 30.5 19.9 9.6 36.6 12.4 24.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 3.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.2 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-82 391 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r t tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 71 325 54 119 491 367 102 1317 94 276 1096 130 Future Volume (vph) 71 325 54 119 491 367 102 1317 94 276 1096 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 280 150 150 150 105 150 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 1251 918 726 Travel Time (s) 71.6 17.1 12.5 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 11.8 22.6 14.4 25.2 26.0 18.5 57.0 26.0 64.5 64.5 Total Split (%) 9.8% 18.8% 12.0% 21.0% 21.7% 15.4% 47.5% 21.7% 53.8% 53.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. 1 I Q 2 'R' 1334 5 06 ',R'- 0- .4- NENEA 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-83 392 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1733 1734 tt r 1734 t 1779 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 325 54 119 491 367 102 1317 94 276 1096 130 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 325 54 119 491 367 102 1317 94 276 1096 130 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 247 1.00 1.00 597 1.00 1.00 775 1.00 1.00 1905 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 106 No 261 143 No 539 202 No 797 311 No 849 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 332 55 121 501 374 104 1344 96 282 1118 133 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 92 426 70 143 597 539 128 1467 104 307 1905 849 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.45 0.45 0.18 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 2975 488 1734 3460 1543 1734 3276 233 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 72 192 195 121 501 374 104 708 732 282 1118 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1733 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1779 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 12.8 13.1 8.3 16.8 20.7 7.1 45.9 46.3 19.2 25.8 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 12.8 13.1 8.3 16.8 20.7 7.1 45.9 46.3 19.2 25.8 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 92 247 248 143 597 539 128 775 797 307 1905 849 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.77 0.79 0.85 0.84 0.69 0.81 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.59 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 106 261 261 143 597 539 202 775 797 311 1905 849 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.1 49.6 49.7 54.3 48.0 33.5 54.7 31.0 31.1 48.6 17.9 13.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.1 11.1 12.3 34.8 10.3 3.8 12.4 17.1 17.4 31.0 1.3 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 6.1 6.3 4.9 7.8 9.4 3.4 21.2 22.0 10.6 9.6 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 80.3 60.7 61.9 89.1 58.4 37.4 67.1 48.1 48.5 79.6 19.2 13.7 LnGrp LOS F E E F E D E D D E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 459 996 1544 1533 Approach Delay, s/veh 64.3 54.2 49.6 29.9 Approach LOS E D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.7 58.2 14.4 21.7 13.4 70.6 10.9 25.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 52.5 9.9 18.1 14.0 60.0 7.3 20.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 21.2 48.3 10.3 15.1 9.1 27.8 6.9 22.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.6 0.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.4 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-84 393 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 215 609 205 147 820 206 115 1594 48 177 1156 92 Future Volume (vph) 215 609 205 147 820 206 115 1594 48 177 1156 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 150 150 150 150 150 150 700 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 672 623 677 775 Travel Time (s) 8.3 7.7 9.2 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 12.4 29.0 29.0 15.4 32.0 32.0 19.6 58.6 58.6 17.0 56.0 56.0 Total Split (%) 10.3% 24.2% 24.2% 12.8% 26.7% 26.7% 16.3% 48.8% 48.8% 14.2% 46.7% 46.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 1 t O 2 'R'• 19 X04 ? i=5 06 IF03 i3 - Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-85 394 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 215 609 205 147 820 206 115 1594 48 177 1156 92 Future Volume (veh/h) 215 609 205 147 820 206 115 1594 48 177 1156 92 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 700 1.00 1.00 835 1.00 1.00 1642 1.00 1.00 1722 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 228 No 315 178 No 354 218 No 696 181 No 730 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 219 621 209 150 837 210 117 1627 49 181 1180 94 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 228 700 297 178 835 354 143 1642 696 181 1722 730 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, vehlh 3469 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 219 621 209 150 837 210 117 1627 49 181 1180 94 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.6 19.9 12.2 10.2 27.5 11.2 8.0 53.2 1.5 12.5 30.3 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 19.9 12.2 10.2 27.5 11.2 8.0 53.2 1.5 12.5 30.3 3.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 228 700 297 178 835 354 143 1642 696 181 1722 730 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.89 0.70 0.84 1.00 0.59 0.82 0.99 0.07 1.00 0.69 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 228 744 315 178 835 354 218 1642 696 181 1722 730 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.9 47.2 29.4 52.9 46.3 24.3 54.2 32.7 8.5 53.8 24.7 9.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 47.9 12.1 6.5 28.6 31.8 2.7 13.5 20.1 0.2 67.4 2.2 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.7 9.8 4.8 5.7 15.4 4.1 3.9 25.9 0.8 8.6 12.6 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 103.8 59.3 35.9 81.4 78.1 27.0 67.7 52.8 8.7 121.2 26.9 9.9 LnGrp LOS F E D F F C E D A F C A Approach Vol, veh/h 1049 1197 1793 1455 Approach Delay, s/veh 64.0 69.5 52.6 37.5 Approach LOS E E D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 58.6 16.8 27.6 14.4 61.2 12.4 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 54.1 10.9 24.5 15.1 51.5 7.9 27.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 14.5 55.2 12.2 21.9 10.0 32.3 9.6 29.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.5 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-86 395 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 179 647 266 95 1034 287 229 1331 144 225 1089 138 Future Volume (vph) 179 647 266 95 1034 287 229 1331 144 225 1089 138 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 190 200 100 50 150 150 195 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 817 587 676 1348 Travel Time (s) 10.1 7.3 9.2 18.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 17.6 38.6 38.6 18.0 39.0 39.0 15.7 50.1 50.1 13.3 47.7 47.7 Total Split (%) 14.7% 32.2% 32.2% 15.0% 32.5% 32.5% 13.1% 41.8% 41.8% 11.1% 39.8% 39.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 } 01 I Q 2 'R'- -1"04 05 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-87 396 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 179 647 266 95 1034 287 229 1331 144 225 1089 138 Future Volume (veh/h) 179 647 266 95 1034 287 229 1331 144 225 1089 138 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1191 1.00 1.00 1047 1.00 1.00 1384 1.00 1.00 1339 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 189 No 505 195 No 444 314 No 586 247 No 568 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 183 660 271 97 1055 293 234 1358 147 230 1111 141 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 189 1191 505 121 1047 444 288 1384 586 247 1339 568 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.07 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 3365 3642 1543 3365 3642 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 183 660 271 97 1055 293 234 1358 147 230 1111 141 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1682 1821 1543 1682 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.6 17.9 17.2 6.6 34.5 20.0 8.2 44.2 7.8 8.2 33.3 7.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.6 17.9 17.2 6.6 34.5 20.0 8.2 44.2 7.8 8.2 33.3 7.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 189 1191 505 121 1047 444 288 1384 586 247 1339 568 V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.55 0.54 0.80 1.01 0.66 0.81 0.98 0.25 0.93 0.83 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 189 1191 505 195 1047 444 314 1384 586 247 1339 568 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.2 33.2 33.0 55.0 42.8 37.6 53.9 36.8 25.5 55.3 34.5 26.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 55.5 0.6 1.1 11.7 29.7 3.6 13.9 20.1 1.0 39.2 6.1 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.2 7.5 6.2 3.2 18.8 7.6 3.9 22.1 2.9 4.7 14.9 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 108.7 33.7 34.1 66.7 72.4 41.2 67.8 56.9 26.5 94.5 40.6 27.4 LnGrp LOS F C C E F D E E C F D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1114 1445 1739 1482 Approach Delay, s/veh 46.1 65.7 55.8 47.7 Approach LOS D E E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 50.1 12.8 43.8 14.8 48.6 17.6 39.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.8 45.6 13.5 34.1 11.2 43.2 13.1 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 10.2 46.2 8.6 19.9 10.2 35.3 14.6 36.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.1 0.1 4.4 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.3 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-88 397 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 59 972 209 70 1124 132 209 1577 116 158 1344 47 Future Volume (vph) 59 972 209 70 1124 132 209 1577 116 158 1344 47 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 210 120 220 150 200 150 170 150 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 710 640 1322 436 Travel Time (s) 9.7 8.7 18.0 5.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 11.5 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 11.5 41.1 41.1 11.5 41.1 11.5 12.2 55.9 55.9 11.5 55.2 Total Split (%) 9.6% 34.3% 34.3% 9.6% 34.3% 9.6% 10.2% 46.6% 46.6% 9.6% 46.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 11.5 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue .01 t 0 2 'R'- ? i 506 rR'- 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-89 398 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 t 1799 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 59 972 209 70 1124 132 209 1577 116 158 1344 47 Future Volume (veh/h) 59 972 209 70 1124 132 209 1577 116 158 1344 47 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1090 1.00 1.00 1126 1.00 1.00 1604 1.00 1.00 791 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 217 No 477 112 No 574 237 No 673 217 No 782 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 60 992 213 71 1147 135 213 1609 118 161 1371 48 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 189 1090 462 112 1126 574 237 1604 673 217 1520 53 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.07 0.46 0.45 Sat Flow, vehlh 3469 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 3469 3642 1543 3469 3498 122 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 992 213 71 1147 135 213 1609 118 161 713 706 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1799 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 31.5 10.7 4.8 37.1 5.4 7.3 52.8 4.1 5.5 43.4 43.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 31.5 10.7 4.8 37.1 5.4 7.3 52.8 4.1 5.5 43.4 43.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 189 1090 462 112 1126 574 237 1604 673 217 791 782 V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.91 0.46 0.63 1.02 0.24 0.90 1.00 0.18 0.74 0.90 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 217 1126 477 112 1126 574 237 1604 673 217 791 782 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.6 40.5 21.6 54.8 41.5 15.0 55.3 32.3 11.4 55.1 30.2 30.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 10.7 0.7 11.2 31.6 0.2 32.9 23.2 0.6 12.9 15.4 15.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.9 14.9 3.7 2.4 20.6 2.1 4.2 26.0 1.9 2.7 20.5 20.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.5 51.2 22.3 65.9 73.0 15.2 88.2 55.5 12.0 68.0 45.6 46.1 LnGrp LOS E D C E F B F F B E D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1265 1353 1940 1580 Approach Delay, s/veh 46.6 66.9 56.4 48.1 Approach LOS D E E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 56.8 11.7 39.9 12.2 56.1 10.6 41.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 51.4 7.0 36.6 7.7 50.7 7.0 36.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.5 54.8 6.8 33.5 9.3 45.6 4.0 39.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.5 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-90 399 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t t t Traffic Volume (vph) 78 634 28 18 830 36 67 1028 32 11 883 90 Future Volume (vph) 78 634 28 18 830 36 67 1028 32 11 883 90 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 4534 1079 1013 510 Travel Time (s) 61.8 14.7 12.6 6.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 15.0 44.4 11.6 41.0 13.0 52.4 11.6 51.0 Total Split (%) 12.5% 37.0% 9.7% 34.2% 10.8% 43.7% 9.7% 42.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue } 01 102 'R' 03 4 05 06 'R' S3- i33 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-91 400 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1794 1734 t 1795 1734 t 1802 1734 t 1763 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 78 634 28 18 830 36 67 1028 32 11 883 90 Future Volume (veh/h) 78 634 28 18 830 36 67 1028 32 11 883 90 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 536 1.00 1.00 481 1.00 1.00 858 1.00 1.00 799 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 152 No 596 103 No 546 123 No 894 103 No 814 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 647 29 18 847 37 68 1049 33 11 901 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 101 1045 47 46 938 41 91 1699 53 31 1463 149 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.46 0.46 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3373 151 1734 3377 148 1734 3424 108 1734 3169 324 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 332 344 18 434 450 68 530 552 11 492 501 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1794 1734 1730 1795 1734 1730 1802 1734 1730 1763 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 19.6 19.7 1.2 29.0 29.0 4.6 26.7 26.7 0.8 25.7 25.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 19.6 19.7 1.2 29.0 29.0 4.6 26.7 26.7 0.8 25.7 25.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.18 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 101 536 556 46 481 499 91 858 894 31 799 814 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.62 0.62 0.39 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.62 0.62 0.35 0.62 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 575 596 103 526 546 123 858 894 103 799 814 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.8 35.4 35.4 57.5 41.8 41.8 56.1 22.0 22.0 58.2 24.3 24.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.2 1.8 1.8 5.4 17.9 17.4 15.7 3.3 3.2 6.7 3.5 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 8.2 8.5 0.6 14.1 14.6 2.3 10.6 11.0 0.4 10.4 10.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.0 37.2 37.1 62.9 59.6 59.1 71.8 25.3 25.2 65.0 27.8 27.8 LnGrp LOS E D D E E E E C C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 756 902 1150 1004 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.7 59.4 28.0 28.2 Approach LOS D E C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 64.0 7.7 41.7 10.8 59.9 11.5 37.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 47.9 7.1 39.9 8.5 46.5 10.5 36.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.8 28.7 3.2 21.7 6.6 27.7 7.5 31.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 5.9 0.0 3.4 0.0 5.3 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.0 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-92 401 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 t r Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1679 963 104 59 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 1679 963 104 59 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 150 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25 Link Distance (ft) 207 1226 380 Travel Time (s) 3.5 20.9 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-93 402 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP PM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' + r Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1679 963 104 59 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1679 963 104 59 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 1 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1713 983 106 60 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1089 0 - 0 2698 983 Stage 1 - - - - 983 - Stage 2 - - 1715 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - 5.1 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 4.6 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 4.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 3 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 641 - 66 302 Stage 1 - - 501 - Stage 2 - - 264 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 641 - 64 302 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 182 - Stage 1 - 485 Stage 2 - 264 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 34.3 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 641 - - 183 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - 0.335 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 0 - 34.3 HCM Lane LOS B A - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 1.4 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-94 403 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Additional Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt tt Traffic Volume (vph) 203 17 56 1060 893 299 Future Volume (vph) 203 17 56 1060 893 299 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 499 880 169 Travel Time (s) 13.6 12.0 2.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 22.6 22.6 11.6 37.4 25.8 Total Split (%) 37.7% 37.7% 19.3% 62.3% 43.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 19: Madison St. & Main Access t02'R' 04 05 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-95 404 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Additional Improvements t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 r 1734 tt tt 1668 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 203 17 56 1060 893 299 Future Volume (veh/h) 203 17 56 1060 893 299 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 2416 954 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 466 205 No No 920 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 207 17 57 1082 911 305 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 263 234 124 2416 1406 469 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.70 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 1734 3551 2639 850 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 207 17 57 1082 617 599 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1734 1730 1730 1668 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 0.6 1.9 8.2 14.9 15.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 0.6 1.9 8.2 14.9 15.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 263 234 124 2416 954 920 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.07 0.46 0.45 0.65 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 523 466 205 2416 954 920 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.5 21.8 26.7 4.0 9.4 9.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.2 0.1 2.6 0.6 3.4 3.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.1 0.5 0.8 1.2 4.5 4.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.7 22.0 29.4 4.6 12.8 13.0 LnGrp LOS C C C A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 224 1139 1216 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.1 5.8 12.9 Approach LOS C A B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.4 13.6 8.8 37.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.9 18.1 7.1 21.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 10.2 8.9 3.9 17.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 7.3 0.4 0.0 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.2 HCM 6th LOS B The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-96 405 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-97 406 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib tt Traffic Volume (vph) 550 8 28 671 25 13 Future Volume (vph) 550 8 28 671 25 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 50 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 403 335 383 Travel Time (s) 5.5 4.6 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-97 406 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP PM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib HCM Lane LOS ) tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - Traffic Vol, veh/h 550 8 28 671 25 13 Future Vol, veh/h 550 8 28 671 25 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 50 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 598 9 30 729 27 14 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 607 0 1028 304 Stage 1 - - - - 603 - Stage 2 - 425 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 967 230 692 Stage 1 - 509 - Stage 2 - 627 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 967 223 692 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 353 - Stage 1 - 509 Stage 2 - 608 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 14.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 424 - 967 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.097 - 0.031 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 - 8.8 HCM Lane LOS B - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.1 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-98 407 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-99 408 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 547 16 0 699 0 17 Future Volume (vph) 547 16 0 699 0 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 335 276 233 Travel Time (s) 4.6 3.8 6.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-99 408 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP PM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib 0.1 - - tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 547 16 0 699 0 17 Future Vol, veh/h 547 16 0 699 0 17 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 595 17 0 760 0 18 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - 306 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 690 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 690 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 690 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-100 409 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Additional Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 35 0 1263 1157 34 Future Volume (vph) 0 35 0 1263 1157 34 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 210 224 288 Travel Time (s) 5.7 3.1 3.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-101 410 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP PM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 35 0 1263 1157 34 Future Vol, veh/h 0 35 0 1263 1157 34 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 38 0 1373 1258 37 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 648 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.94 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 413 0 - Stage 1 0 - 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 413 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.6 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 413 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.092 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.6 - HCM Lane LOS B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-102 411 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Additional Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1 1 1269 1086 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 1 1 1269 1086 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 25 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 306 596 521 Travel Time (s) 8.3 10.2 8.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-103 412 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP PM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y ) tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 1269 1086 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 1269 1086 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 150 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 1 1295 1108 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1759 555 1109 0 - 0 Stage 1 1109 - - - - - Stage 2 650 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 76 475 625 - Stage 1 277 - - - Stage 2 481 - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 76 475 625 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 76 - - - Stage 1 276 - - Stage 2 481 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 32.9 0 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 625 - 131 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.016 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.8 - 32.9 - HCM Lane LOS B - D - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-104 413 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 WP AM Peak hour Intersection: 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access Movement EB B91 B91 SB Directions Served LT T T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 5 403 82 172 Average Queue (ft) 1 90 0 95 95th Queue (ft) 8 396 0 217 Link Distance (ft) 184 451 451 338 Upstream Blk Time (%) 185 1 0 73 Queuing Penalty (veh) 191 4 0 57 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 19: Madison St. & Main Access Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB B51 B51 Directions Served L R L T T T TR T T Maximum Queue (ft) 170 105 44 66 47 164 171 38 59 Average Queue (ft) 119 30 18 39 22 112 114 7 12 95th Queue (ft) 185 108 49 73 52 191 198 40 57 Link Distance (ft) 452 848 848 105 105 173 173 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 37 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 10 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 Intersection: 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 Movement WB NB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 20 31 Average Queue (ft) 5 8 95th Queue (ft) 23 30 Link Distance (ft) 336 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Club at Coral Mountain Urban Crossroads, Inc. F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn SimTraffic Report 2-105 414 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 WP AM Peak hour Intersection: 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) EB NB T R 55 18 12 3 58 18 286 173 Intersection: 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 Movement EB NB NB Directions Served R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 32 93 58 Average Queue (ft) 6 19 10 95th Queue (ft) 29 81 60 Link Distance (ft) 164 173 173 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access Movement EB NB Directions Served LR L Maximum Queue (ft) 5 5 Average Queue (ft) 1 1 95th Queue (ft) 8 8 Link Distance (ft) 260 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 80 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. SimTraffic Report 2-106 415 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 WP PM Peak hour Intersection: 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access Movement EB B91 SB Directions Served LT T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 200 72 308 Average Queue (ft) 71 0 225 95th Queue (ft) 218 0 400 Link Distance (ft) 184 451 338 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 0 25 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 19: Madison St. & Main Access Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB B51 B51 Directions Served L R L T T T TR T T Maximum Queue (ft) 158 74 94 195 184 178 182 97 125 Average Queue (ft) 105 22 50 108 90 125 148 20 45 95th Queue (ft) 172 105 126 248 234 195 220 83 124 Link Distance (ft) 452 848 848 105 105 173 173 Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 17 Queuing Penalty (veh) 73 113 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 10 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 3 Intersection: 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 19 33 45 Average Queue (ft) 3 9 23 95th Queue (ft) 19 32 51 Link Distance (ft) 368 336 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 The Wave - Coral Mountain Urban Crossroads, Inc. F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn SimTraffic Report 2-107 416 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 WP PM Peak hour Intersection: 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) EB EB NB T TR R 94 204 41 27 101 19 119 277 48 286 286 187 175 2 164 173 6 105 Intersection: 22: Madison St. & Proiect Access 3 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) EB NB NB B51 B51 R T T T T 50 234 233 133 109 25 189 174 58 51 50 297 299 175 169 164 173 173 105 105 22 21 9 8 140 133 56 49 Intersection: 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access Movement EB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 10 Average Queue (ft) 1 95th Queue (ft) 12 Link Distance (ft) 257 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 576 The Wave - Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. SimTraffic Report 2-108 417 URBAN CROSSROADS May 31, 2023 Mr. John Gamlin CM Wave Development, LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 81301 CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN SUPPLEMENTAL VMT ASSESSMENT Dear Mr. John Gamlin: 15455 Supplemental VMT. docx The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this Supplemental Assessment of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the proposed Club at Coral Mountain development ("Project"), which is located on the southwest corner of re -aligned Madison Street at 58th Avenue in the City of La Quinta. This letter provides information regarding Project residential and non-residential VMT generated by the Alternative 2 "Existing Entitlements" scenario presented in the CORAL MOUNTAIN ALTERNATIVES TRIP GENERATION AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS COMPARISON letter prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (May 2021). The 2021 Trip Generation Alternatives letter indicated that Alternative 2 is anticipated to have a higher daily VMT and per capita VMT because it generates more daily trips and lacks the full complement of prior proposed land uses (no C -T Zone, surf wave basin, or hotel). The Project does not change existing General Plan land use or zoning designations for the site, consistent with the approved Andalusia Specific Plan and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310). A Specific Plan Amendment is proposed to adjust the location and layout of open space -recreation and low density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of existing land use designations. The Project consists of a commercial corner (60,000 square feet of retail), an 18 -hole golf course, and up to 750 residential units. The Project site plan is shown on Exhibit 1. A supplemental LOS assessment has been prepared in a separate document. To ensure that this supplemental VMT assessment is consistent with technical studies prepared for Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310), the "without Project" datasets are consistent with those presented in the February 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. BACKGROUND Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay -based level of service (LOS) as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. 20341 SW Birch Street I Suite 230 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 J (949) 660-1994 j urbanxroads.com 418 CM Wave Development, LLC May 31, 2023 This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEOA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory) (1). Based on OPR's Technical Advisory, the City of La Quinta adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Policy (July 2021) (2) (City Guidelines), which documents the City's VMT analysis methodology and approved impact thresholds. VMT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The City Guidelines are consistent with the VMT analysis methodology recommended by OPR. As outlined in the La Quinta Guidelines, a Mixed -Use project such as Coral Mountain, which includes both residential and non-residential uses has each type of uses analyzed independently, applying the following significance thresholds for each land use component: • For Residential Uses, VMT per resident exceeding a level of (1) 15 percent below the Citywide per resident VMT OR (2) 15 percent below regional VMT per resident, whichever is more stringent. • For Retail or related uses such as a golf course, a net increase in the total existing VMT for the region. PROJECT SCREENING Consistent with City Guidelines, projects that meet certain screening thresholds based on their location and project type may be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact. The following screening criteria are described within the City Guidelines: • Step 1: Project Type Screening Step 2: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening • Step 3: Low VMT Area Screening A land use project need only meet one of the above screening criteria to result in a less than significant impact. For the purposes of this supplemental assessment, the VMT screening process has been conducted using the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM). As noted in the February 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, the La Quinta Guidelines allow retail projects of less than 70,000 square feet to be screened out. Because the retail component of the Project is less than 70,000 square feet, the retail portion of the Project is screened out. As noted in the February 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, the site location is not within a TPA. The Project is located in RIVTAM traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 4742, which also is not a low VMT generating TAZ. Exhibit 2 shows the Project area RIVTAM traffic analysis zones. Since none of the project level screening criteria were met for residential and golf uses, a full project level VMT analysis has been prepared. URBAN CROSSROADS _ 419 CM Wave Development, LLC May 31, 2023 PROJECT VMT ASSESSMENT Consistent with the February 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, Project VMT has been calculated using RIVTAM. Socioeconomic data (SED) and other model inputs are associated with each TAZ. Out of several different variables in the model SED, the VMT analysis mainly focused on population, households and employment that are used in the trip generation component. The model runs a series of complex steps to estimate daily trip productions and attractions by various trip purposes for each TAZ. Productions and attractions are computed by RIVTAM for each trip purpose, and trip lengths are derived for each zone pair from the respective skim matrices in the model to compute the production and attraction VMT by purpose. Adjustments in socio-economic data (SED) (i.e., population and employment) have been made to a separate TAZ within the RIVTAM model to reflect the Project's proposed population and employment uses. Separate TAZs are used to isolate the Project's VMT. Table 1 summarizes the service population (population and employment) estimates for the Project. It should be noted that the employment estimates have been developed from land use to employment generation factors from the Riverside County General Plan but modified for the specific Project characteristics. TABLE 1: POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES Land Use Estimated Service Population Residential 1,875 Residents Golf Facilities 113 Employees Commercial Retail 240 Employees Total: 2,228 Service Population Adjustments to population and employment factors for the Project TAZs were made to the RIVTAM base year model (2012) and the cumulative year model (2040). Each model was then run with the updated SED factors included for the Project TAZs. PROJECT RESIDENTIAL VMT CALCULATION Consistent with recommendations contained in the La Quinta Guidelines, the residential calculation of VMT is based upon the home-based project -generated VMT per population. This calculation focuses on the occupants of dwelling units within the Project land uses, whereas golf employees and patrons are evaluated separately using the boundary method discussed below. Table 2 shows the home-based VMT associated with the Project for both baseline and cumulative conditions. VMT estimates are provided for both the base year model (2012) and cumulative year model (2040), and linear interpolation was used to determine the Project's home-based baseline (2020) VMT. URBAN CROSSROADS 3 420 CM Wave Development, LLC May 31, 2023 TABLE 2: BASELINE AND CUMULATIVE PROJECT RESIDENTIAL HOME-BASED VMT For baseline (2020) conditions, the residential portion of the Project generates 24,632 Home - Based VMT. There are an estimated 1,875 Project residents. The result is approximately 13.14 home-based VMT / Capita for the 2020 Baseline with Project conditions. In addition, the cumulative (2040) Project scenario results in approximately 13.99 VMT / SP. For comparison purposes, Citywide home-based VMT estimates have been also developed from the "with Project' RIVTAM model run for baseline conditions. Once total home-based VMT for the area is calculated, total area VMT is then normalized by dividing by the population as shown on Table 3. TABLE 3: BASE YEAR CITYWIDE HOME-BASED VMT Category Project 2012 Project 2040 Project 2020 (interpolated) Residents 1,875 1,875 1,875 VMT 23,992 26,232 24,632 VMT / Resident 12.80 13.99 13.14 For baseline (2020) conditions, the residential portion of the Project generates 24,632 Home - Based VMT. There are an estimated 1,875 Project residents. The result is approximately 13.14 home-based VMT / Capita for the 2020 Baseline with Project conditions. In addition, the cumulative (2040) Project scenario results in approximately 13.99 VMT / SP. For comparison purposes, Citywide home-based VMT estimates have been also developed from the "with Project' RIVTAM model run for baseline conditions. Once total home-based VMT for the area is calculated, total area VMT is then normalized by dividing by the population as shown on Table 3. TABLE 3: BASE YEAR CITYWIDE HOME-BASED VMT Category City of La Quinta VMT 544,993 Population 42,000 VMT / Resident 12.98 The estimates of baseline residential home-based Project VMT / Capita are compared to the City of La Quinta VMT of 12.98 home-based VMT / Capita. The City of La Quinta guidelines indicate that residential VMT exceeding the threshold of 15 percent below the Citywide VMT per resident (11.03 VMT / capita) represents a Project impact. The Project home-based VMT / Capita of 13.14 is greater than the City VMT / Capita threshold, indicating a potentially significant VMT impact. PROJECT GOLF COURSE IMPACT ON VMT As noted above, the VMT analysis methodology for non-residential uses focuses on the net increase in the total existing VMT for the region. The golf facilities portion of the project consists of approximately 113 employees. Travel activity associated with total link -level VMT was extracted from the "without Project employment' and "with Project employment' RIVTAM model run for 2012 and 2040 conditions, then interpolated for baseline (2020) conditions. This methodology is commonly referred to as "boundary method" and includes the total VMT for all vehicle trips with one or both trip ends within a specific geographic area. URBAN CROSSROADS 4 421 CM Wave Development, LLC May 31, 2023 The "boundary method" VMT per service population for the CVAG subregion is utilized to normalize VMT into a standard unit for comparison purposes, focusing on the total population and employment in the Coachella Valley. Once total VMT for the area is calculated, total area VMT is then normalized by dividing by the respective service population (i.e., population and employment of the Coachella Valley) as shown on Table 4. To determine whether there is a significant impact using the boundary method, CVAG area VMT with the project employment is compared to without project conditions. TABLE 4: BASE YEAR SUB -REGIONAL LINK -LEVEL VMT The CVAG subregion VMT / SP without Project employment is estimated at 21.56, whereas with the Project employment, the CVAG subregion VMT is estimated at 21.57. The project's effect on VMT (for non-residential uses) is considered significant because it results in a cumulative link - level boundary CVAG VMT per service population increase under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR VMT REDUCTION Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies have been evaluated for the purpose of reducing VMT impacts determined to be potentially significant. The Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities. and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA, 2021) provides information on individual measures for potential reduction in VMT. Consistent with the February 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, reductions in project -generated VMT could be realized via a combination of design elements to enhance bicycle / golf cart / pedestrian accommodations and internal site connections between the commercial corner, golf clubhouse, and residences. However, the effectiveness of these strategies to reduce single -occupant auto travel are reduced in comparison to the full complement of prior proposed land uses (no C -T Zone, surf wave basin, or hotel). The Project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Improved street network characteristics within the Project include sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian- and golf cart- oriented environments from auto - oriented environments. The Project will provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The Project will minimize barriers to pedestrian and golf cart access and interconnectivity. URBAN CROSSROADS 5 422 Without Project Employment With Project Employment VMT Interacting with CVAG Area 15,173,739 15,179,349 CVAG Area Population 510,550 510,550 CVAG Area Employment 193,090 193,203 VMT / Service Population 21.56 21.57 The CVAG subregion VMT / SP without Project employment is estimated at 21.56, whereas with the Project employment, the CVAG subregion VMT is estimated at 21.57. The project's effect on VMT (for non-residential uses) is considered significant because it results in a cumulative link - level boundary CVAG VMT per service population increase under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR VMT REDUCTION Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies have been evaluated for the purpose of reducing VMT impacts determined to be potentially significant. The Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities. and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA, 2021) provides information on individual measures for potential reduction in VMT. Consistent with the February 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, reductions in project -generated VMT could be realized via a combination of design elements to enhance bicycle / golf cart / pedestrian accommodations and internal site connections between the commercial corner, golf clubhouse, and residences. However, the effectiveness of these strategies to reduce single -occupant auto travel are reduced in comparison to the full complement of prior proposed land uses (no C -T Zone, surf wave basin, or hotel). The Project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Improved street network characteristics within the Project include sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian- and golf cart- oriented environments from auto - oriented environments. The Project will provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The Project will minimize barriers to pedestrian and golf cart access and interconnectivity. URBAN CROSSROADS 5 422 CM Wave Development, LLC May 31, 2023 The Project's implementation of these measures could provide for a potential reduction in Project home based VMT of 3%. Project design features could therefore potentially reduce the project home-based VMT per capita of 13.14 to 12.75, which is still higher than the City's threshold of 11.03 VMT per capita. In addition, the golf -related VMT / SP of 21.57 impact is not eliminated by the 3% VMT reduction. CONCLUSION The Project evaluated in this supplemental assessment does not change existing General Plan land use or zoning designations for the site, consistent with the approved Andalusia Specific Plan and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310). It consists of a commercial corner (60,000 square feet of retail), an 18 -hole golf course, and up to 750 residential units. In summary, travel demand modeling of VMT for the Project based upon City of La Quinta guidelines indicates a potential impact for residential uses and golf uses. With project design features, the VMT could potentially be reduced, but the VMT impacts are not eliminated, as anticipated in the CORAL MOUNTAIN ALTERNATIVES TRIP GENERATION AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS COMPARISON letter prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (May 2021). If you have any questions, please contact Marlie at (714) 585-0574 or John at (949) 375-2435. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. John Kain, AICP Principal Attachments URBAN CROSSROADS 0 Marlie Whiteman, P.E. Senior Associate 423 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN S&'" AVE Club at Coral Mountain Residential Land Area: ± 193.7 Acres Commercial Land Area : ± 7.7 Acres Golf Course Area : ± 1$3.0 Acres Total Project Area : ± 384.4 Acres R7llfEliANCE 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg _ 424 URBAN CROSSROADS 4709 Ilk 4692.'q :C 4705 4711~ J4708 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle MilPLi%gx/4rv�kM"q1q EXHIBIT 2: PROJECT AREA RIVTAM TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES 4721 I 4745 I 4759 I 4765 l I ' ` 4807 4785 � �4816 4746 4761 4766 4780 S4796 4725 4739 '- ; � 4752 4767 4781 4809 A\ 4740 I 4757 I 4772 I 4784 I 4801 4722 4741 1 4756 4736 4751 4771 4787 4803 -F 4808 4773 4783 4798 [ — 4804 4799 4704 a--. 4737 4755 4769 4786 4806 _ 4-0.0� 4702 ''rte �• '�i F �, 4753 4774 4788 4810 4729 - -_ X4713 is f 14738 s S'r 4764 47761, , 4790 4812 4747 "'4 X4742/ 4754 775 4791 4813 - -• � X4731 //� I 4642 4743 -.1—S, e: Es�i� Maxar, GeoEye� Earthsta r Geogr4aphics, CN E WAIRDU y. DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, a+ d the GIS User Community LEGEND EXAMPLE OF RIVTAM LOW VMT TAZ RIVTAM TAZ ENCOMPASSING CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT SEPARATE TAZ ADDED FOR PROJECT REPRESENTATION IN RIVTAM 12615 - 01 - TAZ. mxd e 7 VKw4m OS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg L.� �RdSSftQ 425 8 11 Water Supply Assessment for the Proposed Coral Mountain Project Prepared for: z Coachella Valley Water District P.O. Box 1058 Coachella, CA 92236 Prepared by: MSA Consulting Inc. 34200 Bob Hope Dr Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 August 2023 Approved by Coachella Valley Water District Board of Directors On September 12, 2023 426 Table of Contents Listof Figures..........................................................................................................................................4 Listof Tables...........................................................................................................................................4 1 Summary and Requirements...........................................................................................................5 1.1 Regulatory Requirements.............................................................................................................6 1.1.1 Senate Bill 610........................................................................................................................6 1.1.2 Senate Bill 1262......................................................................................................................7 1.2 Water Management Planning Documents.................................................................................... 7 1.2.1 Urban Water Management Planning Act................................................................................7 1.2.2 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.......................................................................... 8 1.2.3 Groundwater Replenishment.................................................................................................9 2 Public Water System.....................................................................................................................10 2.1 Coachella Valley Water District................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Coachella Valley Water District — Potable Water Distribution Systems ................................ 11 2.2 Coachella Valley Hydrology.........................................................................................................12 3 Public Water System — Existing Supply and Demand.....................................................................13 3.1 Groundwater...............................................................................................................................13 3.1.1 Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin.................................................................................... 14 3.1.2 Groundwater Demand..........................................................................................................16 3.1.3 Groundwater Sustainability..................................................................................................16 3.2 Imported Water..........................................................................................................................22 3.2.1 Colorado River Water........................................................................................................... 22 3.2.2 State Water Project.............................................................................................................. 25 3.2.3 Other SWP Water................................................................................................................. 26 3.3 Surface Water............................................................................................................................. 27 3.3.1 River/Stream Diversion........................................................................................................ 27 3.3.2 Stormwater Capture............................................................................................................. 27 3.4 Wastewater and Recycled Water................................................................................................ 28 3.5 Conservation............................................................................................................................... 29 3.6 Landscape Ordinance.................................................................................................................. 29 3.7 Water Shortage Contingency Planning........................................................................................ 29 4 Public Water System — Projected Supply and Demand.................................................................. 30 4.1 Projected Urban Demand and Supply.........................................................................................30 2 427 4.2 Normal, Single -Dry, Multiple -Dry Year Comparison.................................................................... 31 5 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 34 6 Project Water Demands................................................................................................................38 6.1 Projected Indoor Residential Water Demand.............................................................................. 38 6.2 Projected Indoor Commercial and Industrial Water Demand ...................................................... 39 6.3 Projected Outdoor Irrigation Water Demand.............................................................................. 39 6.4 Projected Outdoor Water Features Demand............................................................................... 40 6.5 Projected Total Water Demand................................................................................................... 41 6.6 Projected Water Sources............................................................................................................. 41 6.7 Conservation Measures............................................................................................................... 42 6.7.1 Desert Landscaping & Drought Tolerant Plants.................................................................... 42 6.7.2 Project Specific Water Conservation Measures.................................................................... 43 6.7.3 Golf Course Irrigation System Conservation......................................................................... 43 7 Availability of Sufficient Supplies.................................................................................................. 44 7.1 Water Supply Assessment........................................................................................................... 44 7.2 Requirement for Written Verification of Water Supply Availability ............................................ 45 8 References.................................................................................................................................... 46 3 428 List of Figures Figure 2-1: Coachella Valley Water District Boundary and Cities..........................................................11 Figure 2-2: Coachella Valley Water District Domestic Water Service Areas .......................................... 12 Figure 3-1: Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin and Subbasins...........................................................15 Figure 5-1: Project Regional Location Map............................................................................................ 35 Figure 5-2: Project Vicinity Map............................................................................................................ 36 Figure5-3: Project Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 37 List of Tables Table 2-1: Current and Projected Population for CVWD's Service Area ................................................ 12 Table 2-2: Monthly Average Climate Data for Palm Springs..................................................................13 Table 2-3: Monthly Average Climate Data for Thermal.........................................................................13 Table 3-1: Groundwater Storage in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin......................................16 Table 3-2: CVWD Groundwater Demand in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin ..........................16 Table 3-3: CVWD Colorado River Entitlements (AFY)............................................................................ 24 Table 3-4: Colorado River Deliveries to CVWD at the Imperial Dam/Coachella Canal ........................... 25 Table 3-5: Groundwater Recharge of Colorado River Water Deliveries to CVWD at the Imperial Dam/Coachella Canal............................................................................................................................ 25 Table 3-6: State Water Project Table A Allocations............................................................................... 26 Table 4-1: CVWD Projected Urban Retail Potable Demands................................................................. 30 Table 4-2: CVWD Projected Urban Water Supplies............................................................................... 31 Table 4-3: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison..................................................................... 31 Table 5-1: Project Land Use Summary................................................................................................... 38 Table 6-1: Projected Indoor Residential Water Demand....................................................................... 39 Table 6-2: Projected Indoor Commercial and Industrial Water Demand ............................................... 39 Table 6-3: Projected Outdoor Irrigation Water Demand.......................................................................40 Table 6-4: Projected Outdoor Recreational Water Demand.................................................................40 Table 6-5: Projected Total Water Demand............................................................................................ 41 Table 6-6: Projected Water Sources...................................................................................................... 42 4 429 Summary and Requirements The environmental review of the Coral Mountain Project (Project) is being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The City is the Lead Agency for the planning and environmental review of the proposed Project. The City has identified the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) as the Public Water System (PWS) that will supply water for the proposed Project and has requested that CVWD assist in preparing a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) as part of the environmental review for the Project. The Project is in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. The property is generally vacant and undeveloped with CVWD irrigation mains, numerous dirt roads and hiking trails. Various desert vegetation is found throughout the site. The site is bounded to the east by Madison Street, to the north by 58th Avenue, existing levees and the Coral Mountain to the west and southwest, and 60th Avenue to the south. The Project proposes to develop approximately 387 acres of vacant land to include three planning areas: Planning Area III (PA -III) Residential, Planning Area V (PA -V) Neighborhood Commercial, and Planning Area VI (PA -VI) Golf/Open Space. PA -III consists of approximately 191.8 acres of land and will allow the construction of up to 750 single family attached and detached dwellings and affiliated amenities. In addition to residential acreage, PA III also includes a 5.9 -acre sports club, a 4 -acre golf club, a 3 -acre active amenity park to include both passive and active recreation activities, two restaurants located inside the sports club and golf club, a 12 -acre lake and 2 acres of golf maintenance area. PA -V consists of 7.7 acres of land that will include 60,000 square feet of publicly accessible neighborhood commercial building space. PA -VI consists of approximately 184.9 acres of land to be developed into a championship length 18 -hole golf course and ancillary facilities such as a golf academy, practice range, chipping, putting facilities, and irrigation lakes. This WSA determined that the total projected water demand for the Project is 1,217.01 AFY, or 3.14 acre-feet per acre. This WSA demonstrates that sufficient water supplies exist, or will exist based on current water planning assumptions, to meet the projected demands of the Project, in addition to current and future projected water demands within CVWD's service area in normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years over a 20 -year projection. This WSA will be reviewed every five years, or in the event that the water planning assumptions have changed, until the Project begins construction to ensure it remains accurate and no significant changes to either the Project or available water supply has occurred. Consistent with the provisions of SB 610, neither this WSA nor its approval shall be construed to create a right or entitlement to water service or any specific level of water service, and shall not impose, expand, or limit any duty concerning the obligation of CVWD to provide certain service to its existing customers or to any future potential customers. This WSA does not constitute an agreement to provide water service to the Project, and does not entitle the Project, Project Applicant, or any other person or entity to any right, priority or 5 430 allocation in any supply, capacity, or facility. To receive water service, the Project will be subject to an agreement with CVWD, together with any and all applicable fees, charges, plans and specifications, conditions, and any and all other applicable CVWD requirements in place and as amended from time to time. Nor does anything in this WSA prevent or otherwise interfere with CVWD's discretionary authority to declare a water shortage emergency in accordance with the Water Code. 1.1 Regulatory Requirements This WSA provides an assessment of the availability of sufficient water supplies during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years over a 20 -year projection to meet the projected demands of the Project, in addition to existing and planned future water demands of CVWD, as required by Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 1262. This WSA also includes identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply for the Project and quantities of water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, contracts, and agreements. This WSA has been prepared in compliance with the requirements under SB 610 and SB 1262 by MSA Consulting in consultation with CVWD and the City. This WSA does not relieve the Project from complying with all applicable state, county, city, and local ordinances or regulations, including the CVWD Landscape Ordinance and indoor water use performance standards provided in the California Water Code (CWC). This WSA will be reviewed every five years, or in the event that the water planning assumptions have changed, until the Project begins construction on all planning areas, to ensure it remains accurate and no significant changes to either the Project or available water supply has occurred. The Project applicant shall notify CVWD when construction of all planning areas begins. 1.1.1 Senate Bill 610 On January 1, 2002, Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was enacted and codified in CWC Section 10910 et seq., requiring the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for certain new development projects. As stated in SB 610, the purpose of a WSA is to determine whether the PWS's "total projected water supplies available during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry water years during a 20 -year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the PWS's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses." CWC Section 10912 defines a "project" as any of the following: • A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; • A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space; 0 431 • A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; • A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park, planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor space; • A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 -dwelling unit project (about 250 acre-feet per year). The intent of SB 610 is to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land -use decisions made by cities and counties. 1.1.2 Senate Bill 1262 On January 1, 2017, Senate Bill 1262 (SB 1262) was enacted and amended CWC Section 10910, requiring that information regarding the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) be included in a WSA if the water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater from a basin that is not adjudicated and was designated medium- or high-priority by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1.2 Water Management Planning Documents CVWD has prepared long-term planning documents to project future was use and manage the water supplies within its service area. These planning documents can be used for compliance with SB 610 and SB 1262 and are discussed in further detail in the following sections. ,2.1 Urban Water Management Planning Act The Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA) was established by Assembly Bill 797 (AB 797) on September 21, 1983, and passage of this law recognized that water is a limited resource, and that efficient water use and conservation would be actively pursued throughout the State. The UWMPA requires that municipal water suppliers providing either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more the 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFY), prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years which defines their current and future water use, source of supply, source reliability, and existing conservation measures. 1.2.1.1 Coachella Valley Water District Urban Water Management Plan CVWD prepared and adopted its 2005, 2010, and 2015 UWMPs to document CVWD's projected water demands and plans for delivering water supplies to its water service area during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years over a 20 -year projection. The six urban water suppliers in the Coachella Valley (CVWD, Coachella Water Authority, Desert Water Agency (DWA), Indio Water Authority (IWA), Mission Springs Water District (MSWD), and Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company) collaboratively prepared the 2020 Coachella Valley Regional UWMP, including regional and individual agency content and other necessary elements 7 432 as set forth in DWR's 2020 UWMP Guidebook. The 2020 Coachella Valley Regional UWMP was submitted to DWR on July 1, 2021. DWR accepted CVWD's portion of the Regional UWMP on May 17, 2022. 1.2.2 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act In September 2014, Governor Brown signed three bills into law: Assembly Bill 1739, Senate Bill 1319, and Senate Bill 1168, which became collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), creating a framework for sustainable, local groundwater management for the first time in California history. DWR evaluated and prioritized the 515 groundwater basins identified in Bulletin 118, and 94 of these groundwater basins were designated as high- or medium -priority basins, as of December 2019, requiring them to be sustainably managed within 20 years. SGMA required local authorities to form local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) by June 30, 2017 to evaluate conditions in their local groundwater basins and adopt locally -based Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs), or Alternatives to a GSP (Alternative Plans), tailored to their regional economic and environmental needs. As defined by DWR, the subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin are the Indio, Mission Creek, San Gorgonio Pass, and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins. CVWD's service area overlies the Indio, Mission Creek, and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins. The Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins have been designated medium -priority by DWR and are subject to the requirements of SGMA. The Desert Hot Springs Subbasin has been designated very low -priority by DWR and is not subject to the requirements of SGMA. The Project is located within the Indio Subbasin, which has been designated as a medium priority groundwater basin by DWR under SGMA. 1.2.2.1 Alternative Plan for the Indio Subbasin Twenty years before the adoption of SGMA, CVWD began the development of the initial water management plan for the Coachella Valley in 1994 after recognizing the need to sustainably manage the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. The original planning document is the 2002 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP). The 2002 CVWMP was updated in 2010 and adopted in 2012. CVWD, DWA, CWA, and IWA, are the Indio Subbasin GSAs designated by DWR for their respective service areas. On December 29, 2016, CVWD, DWA, CWA, and IWA collaboratively submitted the 2010 CVWMP Update as an Alternative Plan for the Indio Subbasin, with an associated Bridge Document and supporting documents, to DWR for review and evaluation. On July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative Plan for the Indio Subbasin satisfies the objectives of SGMA and notified the Indio Subbasin GSAs that the Alternative Plan was approved, and that they would be required to submit an assessment and update of the Alternative Plan pursuant to the SGMA by January 1, 2022, and every five years thereafter. The 2022 Alternative Plan Update for the Indio Subbasin was submitted to DWR on December 29, 2021. On February 1, 2018, DWR notified all GSAs who submitted Alternative Plans that they would be required to submit annual reports pursuant to SGMA by April 1, 2018, and every year thereafter. 0 433 CVWD, DWA, CWA, and IWA have collaboratively prepared and submitted the Indio Subbasin Annual Reports for Water Years 2016-2017 through 2021-2022. 1.2.2.2 Alternative Plan for the Mission Creek Subbasin In 2004, CVWD, DWA, and MSWD reached an agreement and created the Mission Creek Subbasin Management Committee (Management Committee). The Management Committee jointly prepared the 2013 Mission Creek -Garnet Hill Subbasin Water Management Plan (2013 MC -GH WMP). On December 29, 2016, CVWD, DWA, and MSWD collaboratively submitted the 2013 MC -GH WMP as an Alternative Plan for the Mission Creek Subbasin, with an associated Bridge Document and supporting documents, to DWR for review and evaluation. On July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative Plan for the Mission Creek Subbasin satisfies the objectives of SGMA and notified the Management Committee that the Alternative Plan was approved, and that they would be required to submit an assessment and update of the Alternative Plan pursuant to SGMA by January 1, 2022, and every five years thereafter. The 2022 Alternative Plan Update for the Mission Creek Subbasin was submitted to DWR on December 30, 2021. On February 1, 2018, DWR notified all GSAs who submitted Alternative Plans that they would be required to submit annual reports pursuant to SGMA by April 1, 2018, and every year thereafter. CVWD, DWA, and MSWD have collaboratively prepared and submitted the Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Reports for Water Years 2016-2017 through 2021-2022. 1.2.3 Groundwater Replenishment State Water Code (SWC) 31630-31639 provides CVWD with the authority to levy and collect water replenishment assessments to implement groundwater replenishment programs (GRPs) within its jurisdictional boundary. Groundwater replenishment is necessary to mitigate overdraft of the groundwater basin and associated undesirable results. The jurisdictional areas that benefit from the GRPs, and where CVWD levies replenishment assessments on groundwater production, are termed Areas of Benefit (AOBs). There are three AOBs within CVWD's boundary: the Mission Creek Subbasin AOB, the West Whitewater River Subbasin AOB, and the East Whitewater River Subbasin AOB. The GRP for the West Whitewater River Subbasin AOB was formed in 1976, the GRP for the Mission Creek Subbasin AOB was formed in 2003, and the GRP for the East Whitewater River Subbasin AOB was formed in 2004. The Project is located within the East Whitewater River Subbasin AOB. 1.2.3.1 Annual Engineer's Reports CVWD is required to prepare and present to its Board of Directors annually an Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment reporting on the conditions of the groundwater supplies and recommend Replenishment Assessment Charges (RACs) to be levied upon groundwater production greater than 25 AFY within each AOB in accordance with SWC 31630- 31639. The Engineer's Report must include the following information: a summary of the conditions of groundwater supplies; the need for replenishment; a description of the E 434 replenishment programs, including the source and amount of replenishment waters, the costs associated with the GRP, the areas directly and indirectly benefited by the GRP, and the amount of groundwater produced in each area during the prior year; and a recommendation for the RAC to be levied on each AOB. The 2023-2024 Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment was prepared and presented to CVWD's Board of Directors on April 25, 2023. Public Water System The City is the Lead Agency for the planning and environmental review of the proposed Coral Mountain Project (Project). The City has identified the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) as the Public Water System (PWS) that will supply water for the proposed Project, and has requested that CVWD assist in preparing a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) as part of the environmental review for the Project. !.1 Coachella Valley Water District CVWD was established in 1918 under the County Water District Act provisions of the California Water Code. CVWD provides water related services for domestic water, wastewater collection and treatment, recycled water, agricultural irrigation water, drainage management, imported water supply, groundwater replenishment, stormwater management, flood control, and water conservation. CVWD's boundary encompasses approximately 640,000 acres as shown in Figure 2-1, mostly within Riverside County, but also extending into northern Imperial and San Diego Counties. 10 435 Figure 2-1: Coachella Valley Water District Boundary and Cities �. +5En Hot .I I, Sky Varlet' . zrk T ldyllw+ld' '•_ Itl�S . I ._:r SPr r..:: HTf, r_1.10rs ER7 RAN,, HO I'A ns Mrd Miles Sar � tir ti '' P 8rrnardin❑ . . Mounr'a+ni Turkey Flar Pfr �'u.473rys r?�':=Asir.' Cuttcnw��d .Lfeun!a.+:s M, Sno vere vaIfer Ma nrobra Cany7n Orq,ap'� Rfvunrains LL � t v, �- �� � RrnesiiupR0.r� I r I' ---------T r.�, ¢ Sarre9a I Salton City 1 8adra n A 2.1.2 Coachella Valley Water District — Potable Water Distribution Systems CVWD has two domestic water service areas that serve potable water to its local communities: the Cove Communities system and Improvement District No. 8 (ID -8) as shown in Figure 2-2. CVWD previously had three water systems, but ID -11 was consolidated into the Cove Communities system in March 2021. CVWD had approximately 113,481 domestic water connections and served approximately 91,230acre-feet (AF) of water in 2022. CVWD serves all of the Cities of Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta, and a portion of Indio, Coachella, and Cathedral City. Other areas served with domestic water by CVWD include a portion of lands near Desert Hot Springs and the Indio Hills. CVWD also serves other unincorporated communities including Thermal, Mecca, Oasis, Desert Shores, Salton Sea Beach, Salton City, North Shore, Bombay Beach, Hot Mineral Springs, and other portions of unincorporated Riverside and Imperial Counties. The Project is located within CVWD's Cove Communities domestic water distribution system. 11 , 30i5/r Figure 2-2: Coachella Valley Water District Domestic Water Service Areas The 2020 Regional UMWP projected that population in CVWD's urban water service area would increase as shown in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Current and Projected Population for CVWD's Service Area Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 2.2 Coachella Valley Hydrology The bulk of natural groundwater replenishment comes from runoff from the adjacent mountains. Climate in the Coachella Valley is characterized by low humidity, high summer temperatures, and mild dry winters. Average annual precipitation varies from 3 to 6 inches of rain on the Coachella Valley floor to more than 30 inches in the surrounding mountains. Most of the precipitation occurs between December and February, except for summer thundershowers. Prevailing winds in the area are usually gentle, but occasionally increase to velocities as high as 30 miles per hour or more. Mid -summer temperatures commonly exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), frequently 12 437 reach 110 IF, and periodically reach or exceed 120 IF, and the average winter temperature is approximately 60 IF as shown in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3. Table 2-2: Monthly Average Climate Data for Palm Springs Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 1 National Weather Service Forecast, Station Palm Springs Airport, 1998-2020 z CIMIS Station 208 — La Quinta II, 2007-2020 Table 2-3: Monthly Average Climate Data for Thermal mmRA lkeb Mar Oct Sep hfit Nov JMm- 71 (F)1 :� :. •� �� �: •� 39 2.7 .• :• (°F)1 rETo (in)1 � � : �(ion)2 Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 1 National Weather Service Forecast, Station Palm Springs Airport, 1998-2020 z CIMIS Station 208 — La Quinta II, 2007-2020 Table 2-3: Monthly Average Climate Data for Thermal Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 1 National Weather Service Forecast, Station Desert Resorts Regional Airport, 1990-2020 z CIMIS Station 218—Thermal South, 2010-2020 3 Public Water Systerr - Existing Supply and Demand Currently, all of Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) urban potable water uses are supplied using groundwater. In addition to groundwater, CVWD has imported water supplies from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River, and recycled water from water reclamation plants. These imported and recycled water supplies are used to meet CVWD's non -potable water demands and to replenish the groundwater basin. 3.1 Groundwater Groundwater is the principal source of potable supply in the Coachella Valley and CVWD obtains groundwater from both the Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. CVWD has the legal authority to manage the groundwater basin within its boundaries under the County Water District Law (California Water Code section 30000, et seq.) and as a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Groundwater, to be supplied to the Project, is also used by other domestic water suppliers and private pumpers for crop irrigation, fish farms, duck clubs, golf course irrigation, greenhouses, and industrial uses in the Coachella Valley. 13 438 lkeb Mar Apo&AayJ_��P►ugJKep Oct Nov Dec Annu 71 39 2.7 Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 1 National Weather Service Forecast, Station Desert Resorts Regional Airport, 1990-2020 z CIMIS Station 218—Thermal South, 2010-2020 3 Public Water Systerr - Existing Supply and Demand Currently, all of Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) urban potable water uses are supplied using groundwater. In addition to groundwater, CVWD has imported water supplies from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River, and recycled water from water reclamation plants. These imported and recycled water supplies are used to meet CVWD's non -potable water demands and to replenish the groundwater basin. 3.1 Groundwater Groundwater is the principal source of potable supply in the Coachella Valley and CVWD obtains groundwater from both the Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. CVWD has the legal authority to manage the groundwater basin within its boundaries under the County Water District Law (California Water Code section 30000, et seq.) and as a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Groundwater, to be supplied to the Project, is also used by other domestic water suppliers and private pumpers for crop irrigation, fish farms, duck clubs, golf course irrigation, greenhouses, and industrial uses in the Coachella Valley. 13 438 3.1.1 Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is bounded on the north and east by the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains, on the south and west by the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, and on the south by the Salton Sea. At the west end of the San Gorgonio Pass, between Beaumont and Banning, the basin boundary is defined by a surface drainage divide separating the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin from the Beaumont Groundwater Basin of the Upper Santa Ana Drainage Area. The southern boundary is formed primarily by the watershed of the Mecca Hills and by the northwest shoreline of the Salton Sea running between the Santa Rosa Mountains and Mortmar. Between the Salton Sea and Travertine Rock, at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains, the southern boundary crosses the Riverside County Line into Imperial and San Diego Counties. Although there is interflow of groundwater throughout the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, fault barriers, constrictions in the basin profile, and areas of low permeability limit and control movement of groundwater. Based on these factors, the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has been divided into subbasins and subareas as described by DWR in 1964 and 2003, and by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 1974 3.1.1.1 Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin — Subbasins As shown on Figure 3-1, the subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin are the Indio, Mission Creek, San Gorgonio Pass, and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins. The subbasins are defined without regard to water quantity or quality. They delineate areas underlain by formations which readily yield stored groundwater through water wells and offer natural reservoirs for the regulation of water supplies. The boundaries between subbasins within the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin are generally defined by faults that impede the lateral movement of groundwater. Minor subareas have also been delineated based on one or more of the following geologic or hydrologic characteristics: types of water -bearing formations, water quality, areas of confined groundwater, forebay areas, groundwater divides, and surface drainage divides. 14 439 Figure 3-1: Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin and Subbasins Source: Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2020-2021 The following is a list of the subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin as designated by DWR in Bulletin 118: • Indio Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.01) • Mission Creek Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.02) • San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.03) • Desert Hot Springs Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.04) DWR designated the Indio, Mission Creek, and San Gorgonio Pass Subbasins as medium -priority, and the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin as very low priority. None of the subbasins are adjudicated or in a state of overdraft. In 1964, DWR estimated that the subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin contained approximately 39,200,000 acre-feet (AF) of water in the first 1,000 feet below the groundwater surface. The capacities of the subbasins are shown in Table 3-1. 15 440 r '• - -- -- --- ------------------------. R]ve1ild0 Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin - -� (Mission Craek Subbasin) ��l 8 �•' •� OeaertHrw 'r r [y� N 1 rwH� 0 8 coachalla Valley Groundwa[er6agin 'arp 7 ° Coachella Yap nater Oasin (San Goigoniv Pass Subhaaln� y� . eYGroudw � ". •.,,, {Deaart Hal Spr9nga � rang 5rahhaslnj ,`ki`}~ ldyllvrll rl l Mirage pnnea riel� +Coachella Palley Groundwater Baeln -" co Z - aeie°' 1 - n {India SuhbaBlnr\ Omwpla Valroy Groundwater Basin �y`1 nnerme } ' � Tna.n.s L !.I. . -•1 -.1 Mflfe HIM camp � 0 x _ .' � � +ty,_ _` v e.ren \ -•.Chacorate `-. Groundwaterater `-•., 1 Z• ., Oaeia . 5 anain '• ``'vim `a1��'-•. � RIYfBIYe 4Werq.lde .-------------_—.__"__._.�------------------._._. - �-----_•.. .. ----- - ` sen olego � 1 _ Imparltl •��• _ - 5M1erBP1 ` \, `M1 •�.. 'Salton sea soacn . W w S-00" Sea .rKwnbin �`Groundwater Basi Q Indio Subbasin ©CM1owlale UalkyGfoundwaler 6asln Faue LinaFebruary ■ 2022 Figure 1-1 QSan Gorgonio PassSubbastri © OrocoplaVwley GIDUndwster6asfn � Carirorn.a::ounly A TODD= Coachella Valley Mission Craek Subbasin W'esl Sa Ron Sea Groundwaler Basin t�p1 Groundwater Basin Q Desert HolSomgs Subbasin &clrRDRAUN G n o u r4 D W A r E R and Subbasins Source: Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2020-2021 The following is a list of the subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin as designated by DWR in Bulletin 118: • Indio Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.01) • Mission Creek Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.02) • San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.03) • Desert Hot Springs Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.04) DWR designated the Indio, Mission Creek, and San Gorgonio Pass Subbasins as medium -priority, and the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin as very low priority. None of the subbasins are adjudicated or in a state of overdraft. In 1964, DWR estimated that the subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin contained approximately 39,200,000 acre-feet (AF) of water in the first 1,000 feet below the groundwater surface. The capacities of the subbasins are shown in Table 3-1. 15 440 Table 3-1: Groundwater Storage in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Subbasin/Subarea Indio Subbasin Palm Springs Subarea 4,600,000 Thousand Palms Subarea 1,800,000 Oasis Subarea 3,000,000 Garnet Hill Subarea 1,000,000 Thermal Subarea 19,400,000 Mission Creek Subbasin 2,600,000 San Gorgonio Subbasin 2,700,000 Desert Hot Springs Subbasin Ole 4,100,000 Source: DWR Bulletin 108 (1964) 1 First 1,000 feet below ground surface. (DWR, 1964) 3.1.2 Groundwater Demand Groundwater is the principal source of potable supply in the Coachella Valley and CVWD extracts groundwater from both the Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, which is continually replenished by CVWD. CVWD's groundwater demands in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin for 2018 through 2022 are shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2: CVWD Groundwater Demand in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin 3.1.3 Groundwater Sustainability Long-term sustainability is typically assessed based on changes in groundwater storage over a historical period on the order of ten to twenty years that includes wet and dry periods. 3.1.3.1 Indio Subbasin The 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update identified 57 Key Wells across the subbasin to represent local groundwater levels, shown in Figure 3-2. The plan set metrics to demonstrate sustainability, including a Minimum Threshold (MT) at each Key Well. MTs are numeric values used to define undesirable results under SGMA. In WY 2021-2022, water levels in all 57 Key Wells remained above their respective MTs. This confirms that the significant undesirable results of chronic lowering of groundwater levels, depletion of groundwater storage, and potential subsidence are not occurring in the Indio Subbasin. 16 441 Figure 3-2: Water Level Monitoring Wells in the Indio Subbasin v a O o 0 r. 8 4o KW_oozKW6.,004 KW_007 n 0 8 KW 908 KW 013 Kw Qss 00 Kw_Qes o�j °❑a ° ° �Kw o14 KW 023 KYY_006 °❑ :D❑ Hw_877 Kw 909 ° afl � 7W_016" XW_018 ❑ HW ♦)17 ° ° ° ❑ ❑ 0 _KW81 Q to ° � KW 012 �KW_0240 KW,025 KW_0$7 CS 0 000 K9Y_026 KW_G19 4a C°n KW_62Q _021 ❑ KW_O SQ KW 0 0 KW_27 ° °° 001 ° .02B KW 026 KW Kyy, o ° Q 039 Kw 033 KW 639 KW 07I ° []� ® ❑ KW MO KW_835 KW Q3B ❑ KW 0 0 041_ ❑ I(W OAT KW 077 °00 PKW 0434 ° RW_ua4 0 KW_045 KW_1){6 off° O D v Op KW_Qa9 KW 046 �7[Vd 1357 KW 090 ° ❑ 00 a a 4 Q HW 05] NW_v7 aa KWOfi2 Os6 (3 Kw 054 C O Kw ose tar7.rsllae - �1 Riverside fin olego—______ �j 0 --- Iln,mial j KW 067 I I IS Kav Well March 2023 Figure 3-1 o Otw mone"ad weds Indio UU �r� Elevation Monitoring Q Indio Subbesin Weli Locations in the --I CalirOm,a S°unty GRnUNDW ArFR Indio 5e7bhasin agpnwnal hlnneurirrg neencY Key WONwelwi r�lw6ns MorOrpreA IlenRu9d 6110nlrofyd KW Coachella valley water O151nCt 52 a5a 305 rnachella wmer nl,I�❑�ly a 4 a t7eserl Wafer Agency d 32 36 India Vaster AurierNy 7 25 2E I Mission Springs Wafer t]Islreci 0 2 70.1S7$77 EE�j Source: 2022 Alternative Plan Update for the Indio subbasin Figure 3-3 shows the historical annual change in groundwater storage from 1970 through Water Year (WY) 2020-2021 in the Indio subbasin. The figure also shows annual inflows, outflows, groundwater production, and 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in groundwater storage. During periods of high artificial recharge, the change in storage tends to be positive. In dry years or periods of high groundwater pumping, the change in storage can be negative. As shown in Figure 3-3, annual inflows to the Indio subbasin are highly variable with years of high inflows corresponding to wet years when SWP delivery volumes were greater. Higher inflows in the mid -19805 occurred when the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) commenced large-scale advanced water deliveries to the Indio subbasin. After an extended period of decline, both the 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in storage have shown positive trends since 2009, and the 10 -year running -average has been positive since 2017. 17 442 Source: 2022 Alternative Plan Update for the Indio subbasin Figure 3-3 shows the historical annual change in groundwater storage from 1970 through Water Year (WY) 2020-2021 in the Indio subbasin. The figure also shows annual inflows, outflows, groundwater production, and 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in groundwater storage. During periods of high artificial recharge, the change in storage tends to be positive. In dry years or periods of high groundwater pumping, the change in storage can be negative. As shown in Figure 3-3, annual inflows to the Indio subbasin are highly variable with years of high inflows corresponding to wet years when SWP delivery volumes were greater. Higher inflows in the mid -19805 occurred when the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) commenced large-scale advanced water deliveries to the Indio subbasin. After an extended period of decline, both the 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in storage have shown positive trends since 2009, and the 10 -year running -average has been positive since 2017. 17 442 Figure 3-3: Historical Annual Change in Groundwater Storage in the Indio Subbasin Source: Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022 As shown in Figure 3-4, groundwater levels have increased significantly in the Indio Subbasin from WY 2008-2009 to WY 2021-2022. The Indio Subbasin Annual Report uses 2009 water levels as a metric of sustainability because historical low groundwater levels occurred in the years around 2009 throughout most of the Indio Subbasin. The Indio Subbasin shows a long-term positive trend in sustainability resulting from implementation of the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan. IN 443 700.E "0.000 500 000 400.000 � a00,0o0 0 u_ 200.000 a 190.00 - - 0 I •1 90,000 Z00.00 22;?t;2P.ltiFUI5im;"21�2m52289M2aPIN aREBoto988o19uS'V�2;"2r�;ggr�i. ng �vrrnwwwrno�wr�w�aiwwwmrncnw�wwwrnv �rnra0000000000a00000000000 —�� NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NN W W B A W W C C A B A D W W W a W D C D C C C A C W W W W WAD D A B A W D C D B W B D C C B W B W D D C Water Year Now Values shp prix to- 28+7 an on a earendar year basis. Latrar9 balowthe years ln%caa saerarrante Varay Mw Yaar Typo. W = Vkt A - Atom normal 9 = Below NQFMM D -Dry C' Gni®Ily Dry Annual Inflows 10 -year Average Change in Storage March 2023 Figure 7-2 TCDD_ Rnnuaf Oueows - — 2Qyaar Avbraga Changs In Storage Historical Annual Change in Groundwater Storage GrounRwater Production Annual Change in Storage GROUNDWATER in the Indio Subbasin Source: Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022 As shown in Figure 3-4, groundwater levels have increased significantly in the Indio Subbasin from WY 2008-2009 to WY 2021-2022. The Indio Subbasin Annual Report uses 2009 water levels as a metric of sustainability because historical low groundwater levels occurred in the years around 2009 throughout most of the Indio Subbasin. The Indio Subbasin shows a long-term positive trend in sustainability resulting from implementation of the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan. IN 443 Figure 3-4: Change in Groundwater Elevation from Water Year 2008-2009 through Water Year 2021-2022 in the Indio Subbasin �awr.n�Vv "r�"' "r•T. U � x inpn rE�.aw L S. wcpkn �mmt— fS� eryy 1 ' mrm ;.N m Source: Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022 N awvuwe..., N-Tw C�eryp IF.MI '�. 19y4ro.wn ileow,m O.c w ev [�san+a O,vn� C]o-s O s�eo [�aowa D mw -+v 3.1.3.2 Mission Creek Subbasin The 2022 Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan Update identified nine Key Wells across the subbasin to represent local groundwater levels, as shown in Figure 3-5. The plan set MTs at each Key Well to demonstrate sustainability. In WY 2021-2022, water levels in all nine Key Wells remained above their respective MTs, as shown in the hydrographs in Figure 3-5. This confirms that the significant undesirable results of chronic lowering of groundwater levels, depletion of groundwater storage, and potential subsidence are not occurring in the Mission Creek Subbasin. 19 444 Figure 3-5: Water Level Monitoring Wells in the Mission Creek Subbasin �� a gg r•����RP[>£8RR4elslkkerixr 04PQ3 'rm––– – – – – –– LR�'_ ——------———-- ;----•__-.- - aa aalsaaee ssssyyGGppyygg • – e �Y��Ek#9R���CYkY KYR��� 1�7 117; ...... 1 ` _ 12031 ai/• E'0' � / �`.–––--–––--–– • wars.rn w�viirsr..x>acxr �waesnrt tecessmasm 'nxn :om ��piwra6+�r xe�nacaxa rKm1R ]MexCy� �—� er cxa [awgtY aie NoiSuraM4 arrbre.a 6 AwMdvasF xXn UrWKs NN rta ovmei�q•n-r wme dwisw wrnm�odor� evY p 8 MnWn $eYga Wane boEld •Nas WeA–..-9aoams • wrr4dr 0+d mr rranrte '+ papp wyrryseey-xry ww ��ryysN'as6 Source: 2022 Alternative Plan Update for the Mission Creek Subbasin ------------ 5a6 �!>IR�lRAtnARARfElRRl�Az "�xr ppm awxgavanps u�s.a piagc�draix prae¢W Waw Year 2021.2022 Tne padrm xvnr wg9pNgary isw iso[mY.O: eask�d Coachella Vaey. califomla ew�parrw u. oamrn[agr wvmm�aum Mdern .� Figure 3-6 shows the historical annual change in groundwater storage from 1978 through WY 2021-2022 in the Mission Creek Subbasin. The figure also shows annual inflows, outflows, groundwater production, and 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in groundwater storage. During periods of high artificial recharge, the change in storage tends to be positive. In dry years or periods of high groundwater pumping, the change in storage can be negative. As shown in Figure 3-6, after a period of decline, starting in 2004 both the 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in groundwater storage have shown positive trends. Annual inflows to the Mission Creek Subbasin are highly variable with years of high inflows corresponding to years when SWP delivery volumes were greater. The 20 -year running -average change in storage shows that the Mission Creek Subbasin has been in balance since 2012. 20 445 �m � -- paeag��aseaaa�s��asse r -,' �. -ITT TOM >` x81roe'aew°n�rtn amesxan 'GRAP-S'NITH NE ARABLE KEY'YEHYJRCSLI O(IJ�f: LL FWit y ANU MINIMUM r fi�4;f50L 0'3 Kf Mm Cask Subbase Anwal Rsport "�xr ppm awxgavanps u�s.a piagc�draix prae¢W Waw Year 2021.2022 Tne padrm xvnr wg9pNgary isw iso[mY.O: eask�d Coachella Vaey. califomla ew�parrw u. oamrn[agr wvmm�aum Mdern .� Figure 3-6 shows the historical annual change in groundwater storage from 1978 through WY 2021-2022 in the Mission Creek Subbasin. The figure also shows annual inflows, outflows, groundwater production, and 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in groundwater storage. During periods of high artificial recharge, the change in storage tends to be positive. In dry years or periods of high groundwater pumping, the change in storage can be negative. As shown in Figure 3-6, after a period of decline, starting in 2004 both the 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in groundwater storage have shown positive trends. Annual inflows to the Mission Creek Subbasin are highly variable with years of high inflows corresponding to years when SWP delivery volumes were greater. The 20 -year running -average change in storage shows that the Mission Creek Subbasin has been in balance since 2012. 20 445 Figure 3-6: Historical Annual Change in Groundwater Storage in the Mission Creek Subbasin 8{OM Il 04,000 - — - -- 40.000 � —I m LL zo,oau 0 [40,o0o) m 00 W a1Oo W Oi T �+ Owl co O O O O Q rV V LD 0 C7 N rn rn m rn m e� a e� a 67 6• C D D 0 0 o C 4 n d N N N N N N N "I N N N N Year ®Change in Storage —Total outflow —Groundwater Pumping —10 -Year Average Change in Storage --^Total inffow _20 -Year Average Change in Storage HISTORICAL ANNUAL CHANCE IN Note: Water balance accounting based on calendar year through 2016 and wateryear thereafter. GROUNDWATER STORAGE Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Report Water Year 2021-2022 Coachella Va ev. California este: 112 2023 p..' Na.- CM19t&7354 `t4% 1 ] I Figure 7-3 Source: Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022 Groundwater levels have increased significantly in the Mission Creek Subbasin over the past 10 years from WY 2008-2009 to WY 2021-2022 as shown in Figure 3-7. The Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Report uses 2009 water levels as a metric of sustainability because historical low groundwater levels occurred in the years around 2009 throughout most of the Mission Creek Subbasin. The Mission Creek Subbasin shows a long-term positive trend in sustainability resulting from implementation of the Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan. 21 446 Figure 3-7: Change in Groundwater Elevation from Water Year 2008-2009 through Water Year 2021-2022 in the Mission Creek Subbasin am o4Po1 ar9 SLR A��!lA lil AxR AxRR%'� ulna �&i 63F9�& µ��sY33�23�1�ffi9 21Ho1 AA Ie F� 23e102 aa 6— '�ru��l�A��ARAA�AAIii�IRI _ uOp1 �����RR�RIi a'zl AIA AIIA.I 361(121 t� ��x�Rl>!R{I AIR lkl Rl AlIR N a c�n<ivlwa+r aee.n•mm�ni Fa�irry eer:n crwk yeca.. IF - •Is ,n.ln [eel i-"nav pw tp aql epp....• 1 ar%r . k ,xrre lewd w� r.. • rrxr �'Ti°r0'°e�� t: - �AN•'I 0 [.I1.11.N[... 2 2 STORAGE IVY 2(IOd3-2W9 TO 4YY 2021.2022 Mp1Wx•g Apercy wcp .drne xw,rr,inr[: x:nc�-knywgl:.:.J.ax ierw J+r+r 0+19^e mwaurlwu.rpxeuryq .•am.nwm•pr,-TyW•SEiC o .. neex ulo to m9.n•tw fxlln[lasu •lp b%M91NN Z �[•'rrow v'>'9anwmr w•W n-..nsa wx'aw gype,y,,. rrnrp S,uMY m+r•aam4p[mar'4. MisSlpn CMek $pppa.a[ Annual Fled LYala[Yeae 2021.20x2 aam apnpv wrsr n -.,Irl rcq was—�v�ae ^�rt4rn1•rNntfY•[l pro5lmlrcmn• � G9ae11e1L�VaAey, Ce e p.• [w,mreypuy rcr[nw —.._ac ma —'M.en lndlydry,reytor.�e ry.eleJ 3'�v.��±xiem lnl[p[aeove [t�rn.,m�rcan ..may// p•1•. LISR91] N. H• CM CM1910T15i • cvrAp.rGY'•,W LAwa.ma,a.e•rea•tiel lM1Ml Mq[�e'afHW6 ...• [«1v NA': xntl.mu v�'a�M✓rlVl,1]Wa-]ppi •N•ew 4wlylaegr�.dua�aa • N.. rratt [r.�+u'OBwrawB nww Yrfmbi l♦ti i Fpu• 7-5 Source: Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022 3.2 Imported Water CVWD has two sources of imported water available: Colorado River water delivered via the Coachella Canal and SWP water exchanged for Colorado River water delivered through the Colorado River Aqueduct. These imported water sources are used to recharge the groundwater basin and as an alternative source to meet non -potable demands from irrigation of agriculture, golf, and urban uses that would have otherwise been met by pumping groundwater. In the future, if urban demand significantly increases relative to non -potable uses, Colorado River water may be treated and delivered directly to customers through CVWD's potable water distribution system. 3.2.1 Colorado River Water Colorado River water has been a significant water supply source for the Indio Subbasin since the Coachella Canal was completed in 1949. CVWD is the only agency in the Indio Subbasin that receives Colorado River water allocations. The Colorado River is managed and operated in accordance with the Law of the River, a collection of interstate compacts, federal and state legislation, various agreements and contracts, an international treaty, a U.S. Supreme Court 22 447 decree, and federal administrative actions that govern the rights to use Colorado River water within the seven Colorado River Basin states. The 1922 Colorado River Compact apportioned the waters of the Colorado River Basin between the Upper Colorado River Basin (i.e., Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico) and the Lower Basin (i.e., Nevada, Arizona, and California). The 1922 Colorado River Compact allocates 15 million AFY of Colorado River water as follows: 7.5 million AFY to the Upper Basin and 7.5 million AFY to the Lower Basin, plus up to 1 million AFY of surplus supplies. The Lower Basin's water was further apportioned among the three Lower Basin states by the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act and the 1931 Boulder Canyon Project Agreement, typically called the 1931 Seven Party Agreement, which allocates California's apportionment of Colorado River water among Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District (IID), CVWD, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. The 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California established Arizona's basic annual apportionment at 2.8 million AFY, California's at 4.4 million AFY, and Nevada's at 0.3 million AFY. Mexico is entitled to 1.5 million AFY of the Colorado River under the 1944 United States -Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande. However, this treaty did not specify a required quality for water entering Mexico. In 1973, the United States and Mexico signed Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission requiring certain water quality standards for water entering Mexico. California's Colorado River supply is protected by the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act, which provides that in years of insufficient supply on the main stem of the Colorado River, supplies to the Central Arizona Project shall be reduced to zero before California will be reduced below 4.4 million AF in any year. This assures full supplies to the Coachella Valley, except in periods of extreme drought. The Coachella Canal is a branch of the All-American Canal that brings Colorado River water into the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. Under the 1931 Seven Party Agreement, CVWD receives 330,000 AFY of Priority 3A Colorado River water diverted from the All-American Canal at the Imperial Dam. The Coachella Canal originates at Drop 1 on the All-American Canal and extends approximately 123 miles, terminating in CVWD's Lake Cahuilla. The service area for Colorado River water delivery under CVWD's contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) is defined as Improvement District No. 1 (ID -1), which encompasses 136,400 acres covering most of the East Valley and a portion of the West Valley north of Interstate 10. Under the 1931 Seven Party Agreement, CVWD has water rights to Colorado River water as part of the first 3.85 million AFY allocated to California. CVWD is in the third priority position along with IID. In 2003, CVWD, IID, and MWD successfully negotiated the 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (2003 QSA), which quantifies Colorado River allocations through 2077 and supports the transfer of water between agencies. Under the 2003 QSA, CVWD has a base entitlement of 330,000 AFY. CVWD negotiated water transfer agreements with MWD and IID that increased CVWD supplies by an additional 123,000 AFY. CVWD's net QSA supply will increase to 424,000 AFY by 2026 and remain at that level until 2047, decreasing to 421,000 AFY until 2077, when the agreement terminates. As of 2021, CVWD's available Colorado River water diversions at Imperial Dam under the QSA were 399,000 AFY. This includes the base entitlement of 330,000 AFY, the MWD/IID Transfer of 20,000 AFY, IID/CVWD First Transfer of 50,000 AFY, and IID/CVWD Second 23 448 Transfer of 28,000 AFY. CVWD's QSA diversions also deducts the -26,000 AFY transferred to San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) as part of the Coachella Canal Lining Project and the - 3,000 AFY transfer to Indian Present Perfected Rights. Additionally, under the 2003 QSA, MWD transferred 35,000 AFY of its State Water Project (SWP) Table A Amount to CVWD. This SWP water is exchanged for Colorado River water and can be delivered at Imperial Dam for delivery via the Coachella Canal to the eastern portion of the Indio Subbasin or at Lake Havasu for delivery via the Colorado River Aqueduct to the western portion of the Indio Subbasin at the Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility (WWR-GRF). The 2019 Second Amendment guaranteed delivery of 35,000 AFY from 2019 to 2026, for a total of 280,000 AFY of water to the WWR-GRF during that timeframe. MWD can deliver the water through CVWD's Whitewater Service Connections (for recharge at WWR-GRF) or via the Advance Delivery account. The MWD/IID Transfer originated in a 1989 agreement with MWD to receive 20,000 AF of its Colorado River supply. The 2019 Amended and Restated Agreement for Exchange and Advance Delivery of Water defined the exchange and delivery terms between MWD, CVWD, and DWA. The 2019 Second Amendment to Delivery and Exchange Agreement reduced CVWD's annual delivery of the MWD/IID Transfer to 15,000 AFY, for a total of 105,000 AF, if taken at the Whitewater Service Connections (for recharge at WWR-GRF) between 2020 and 2026. For those seven years, MWD keeps the remaining 5,000 AFY, after which CVWD's allocation increases back up to 20,000 AFY. CVWD's total allocations under the QSA, including MWD's transfer of 35,000 AFY and the MWD/IID Transfer, will increase from 424,000 AFY in 2020 to 459,000 AFY by 2026 and remain at that level for the remainder of the 75 -year term of the QSA. Table 3-3 lists total Colorado River entitlements under existing agreements. Table 3-3: CVWD Coiorado River entitlements (AFY) ��Miversion 1111 Base Entitlement 2020 1 330,000 2025.,MJM2030 330,000 F330,000 2035 do 330,000 0 - 330,000 330,000 1988 MWD/IID Approval Agreement 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 IID/CVWD First Transfer 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 IID/CVWD Second Transfer' 23,000 48,000 53,000 53,000 53,000 53,000 Coachella Canal Lining -26,000 -26,000 -26,000 -26,000 -26,000 -26,000 Indian Present Perfected Rights Transfer -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 QSA Diversions 394,000 419,000 424,000 424,000 424,000 424,000 MWD SWP Transfer' 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Total Diversions 429,000 454,000 459,000 459,000 459,000 459,000 Assumed Conveyance Losses (5%) -21,200 -22,700 -22,950 -22,950 -22,950 -22,950 MWD/IID Approval Agreement Transfer -5,000 -5,000 0 0 0 0 Source: 2022 Alternative Plan Update for the Indio Subbasin ' The Second IID/CVWD Transfer began in 2018 with 13,000 AF of water. This amount increases annually by 5,000 AFY for a total of 53,000 AFY in 2026. z The 35,000 AFY MWD/CVWD SWP Transfer may be delivered at either Imperial Dam or Whitewater River and is not subject to SWP or Colorado River reliability. 3 Accounts for -5,000 AFY reduction in MWD/IID Approval Agreement deliveries from 2020-2026 per the 2019 Amendments with MWD. 24 449 The Colorado River deliveries to CVWD at the Imperial Dam/Coachella Canal from 2018 through 2022 are shown in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: Colorado River Deliveries to CVWD at the Imperial Dam/Coachella Canal Imperial Dam/Coachella Canal I 338,035 I 343,971 I 350,618 I 351,904 I 330,387 Source: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Reports for Arizona, California, and Nevada. 1 The 15,000 AFY of 1988 MWD/IID Approval Agreement water was delivered at WWR-GRF from 2020 to 2022. CVWD's recharge volumes of Colorado River water from 2018 through 2022 are shown in Table 3-5. Table 3-5: Groundwater Recharge of Colorado River Water Deliveries to CVWD at the Imperial Dam/Coachella Canal Thomas E. Levy GRF 33,348 36,143 37,536 37,971 27,993 Palm Desert GRF 0 7,757 9,700 10,633 10,949 Source: 2023-2024 CVWD Annual Engineer's Reports on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 3.2.2 State Water ProieC The SWP is managed by DWR and includes 705 miles of aqueduct and conveyance facilities extending from Lake Oroville in Northern California to Lake Perris in Southern California. The SWP has contracts to deliver 4.172 million AFY to the State Water Contractors. The State Water Contractors consist of 29 public entities with long-term contracts with DWR for all, or a portion of, their water supply needs. In 1962 and 1963, DWA and CVWD, respectively, entered contracts with the State of California for a total of 61,200 AFY of SWP water. SWP water has been an important component of the region's water supply mix since CVWD and DWA began receiving and recharging SWP exchange water at the WWR-GRF. Starting in 1973, CVWD and DWA began exchanging their SWP water with MWD for Colorado River water delivered via MWD's Colorado River Aqueduct. Because CVWD and DWA do not have a physical connection to SWP conveyance facilities, MWD takes delivery of CVWD's and DWA's SWP water, and in exchange, delivers an equal amount of Colorado River water to the Whitewater Service Connections (for recharge at WWR-GRF and Mission Creek Groundwater Replenishment Facility). The exchange agreement was most recently re-established in the 2019 Amended and Restated Agreement for Exchange and Advance Delivery of Water. Each SWP contract contains a "Table A" exhibit that defines the maximum annual amount of water each contractor can receive excluding certain interruptible deliveries. DWR uses Table A amounts to allocate available SWP supplies and some SWP project costs among the contractors. Each year, DWR determines the amount of water available for delivery to SWP contractors based on hydrology, reservoir storage, the requirements of water rights licenses and permits, water quality, and environmental requirements for protected species in the Sacramento -San Joaquin 25 450 River Delta (Delta). The available supply is then allocated according to each SWP contractor's Table A amount. CVWD's and DWA's collective increments of Table A water are listed in Table 3-6. Original Table A SWP water allocations for CVWD and DWA were 23,100 AFY and 38,100 AFY, respectively, for a combined amount of 61,200 AFY. CVWD and DWA obtained a combined 100,000 AFY transfer from MWD under the 2003 Exchange Agreement. In 2004, CVWD purchased an additional 9,900 AFY of SWP Table A water from the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District (Tulare Lake Basin) in Kings County. In 2007, CVWD and DWA made a second purchase of Table A SWP water from Tulare Lake Basin totaling 7,000 AFY. In 2007, CVWD and DWA also completed the transfer of 16,000 AFY of Table A Amounts from the Berrenda Mesa Water District in Kern County. These latter two transfers became effective in January 2010. With these additional transfers, the total SWP Table A Amount for CVWD and DWA is 194,100 AFY. Table 3-7 shows the percent allocation of SWP Table A allocations from 2018 through 2022. Table 3-8 shows the recharge of SWP Exchange Water from 2018 through 2022. Table 3-6: State Water Project Table A Allocations Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan Table 3-7: State Water Project Table A Percent Allocations Table A Allocation 35% 1 75% I 20% I 5% I 5% Source: CA Department of Water Resources Historical Table A Allocations for Years 1996-2023 Table 3-8: CVWD and DWA Groundwater Recharge Groundwater Recharge (A Whitewater River GRIF 2018 2019 I. of 2020 0202 see 2022 Mission C eek GRF 128,255' 15,011J Source: CVWD 2023-2024 Annual Engineer's Reports on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 1 Between 2020 and 2022, the 15,000 AFY of 1988 MWD/IID Approval Agreement water was delivered at Whitewater River GRF. 3.2.3 Other SWP Water There are other types of SWP water that can be purchased, such as individual water purchase opportunities and transfers/exchanges. These may be conveyed to CVWD and DWA as available, but no commitments exist. 26 451 In 2008, CVWD and DWA entered into separate agreements with DWR for the purchase and conveyance of supplemental SWP water under the Yuba River Accord Dry Year Water Purchase Program (Yuba Accord). This program provides dry year supplies through a water purchase agreement between DWR and Yuba County Water Agency, which settled long-standing operational and environmental issues over instream flow requirements for the lower Yuba River. The amount of water available for purchase varies annually and is allocated among participating SWP contractors based on their Table A amounts. CVWD and DWA may purchase up to 1.72 percent and 0.69 percent, respectively, of available Yuba Accord water, in years it is made available. Yuba Accord deliveries have varied from zero in multiple years to a total of 2,664 AFY to CVWD and DWA in 2013. Article 21 water (described in Article 21 of the SWP water contracts), "Interruptible Water," is water that State Water Contractors may receive on a short-term basis in addition to their Table A water if they request it in years when it is available. Article 21 water is used by many contractors to help meet demands in low allocation years. Article 21 water is not available every year, amounts vary when it is available, and is proportionately allocated among participating Contractors. The availability and delivery of Article 21 water cannot interfere with normal SWP operations and cannot be carried over for delivery in a subsequent year. � 3 Surface Water CVWD does not currently use or intend to use any local surface water as part of its urban potable water supply. Local runoff is captured and used for groundwater recharge. 3.3.1 River/Stream Diversion Surface water supplies come from several local rivers and streams including the Whitewater River, Snow Creek, Falls Creek, and Chino Creek, as well as a number of smaller creeks and washes. Because surface water supplies are affected by variations in annual precipitation, the annual supply is highly variable. The 50 -year hydrologic period from 1970 to 2019 had an annual average watershed runoff of 52,506 AFY, with approximately 43,300 AFY in natural infiltration. Runoff during the 25 -year period from 1995 to 2019 was below average, with 39,196 AFY in watershed runoff and 29,200 AFY in natural infiltration. CVWD does not currently use or intend to use any local surface water as part of its urban potable water supply. Local runoff is captured and used for groundwater recharge. 3.3.2 Stormwater Capture The Coachella Valley drainage area is approximately 65 percent mountainous and 35 percent typical desert valley with alluvial fan topography buffering the valley floor from the steep mountain slopes. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 30 inches or more in the San Bernardino Mountains to less than 3 inches at the Salton Sea. Three types of storms produce precipitation in the drainage area: general winter storms, general thunderstorms, and local thunderstorms. Longer duration, lower intensity rainfall events tend to have higher recharge 27 452 rates, but runoff from flash flooding can result from all three types of storms. Otherwise, there is little to no flow in most of the streams in the drainage area. Significant amounts of local runoff are currently captured at the Whitewater River GRF and in the debris basins and unlined channels of the western Coachella Valley. Additional stormwater will be captured when the Thousand Palms Flood Control Project is completed and when flood control is constructed in the Oasis area. However, limited data exists to estimate the amount of additional stormwater that could be captured by new facilities in the Coachella Valley. Nonetheless, large-scale stormwater capture is not expected to yield sufficient water to be worth the investment as a single purpose project. Small-scale stormwater retention systems located in areas of suitable geology to allow percolation could capture small intensity storms as well as street runoff. The potential yield of these system are not known at this time, but stormwater capture should be considered in conjunction with projects that construct stormwater and flood control facilities. 1.4 Wastewater and Recycled Water Wastewater that has been highly treated and disinfected can be reused for landscape irrigation and other purposes. Recycled wastewater has historically been used for irrigation of golf courses and municipal landscaping in the Coachella Valley since as early as the 1960s. As growth occurs in the eastern Coachella Valley, the supply of recycled water is expected to increase, creating an additional opportunity to maximize local water supply. CVWD operates five water reclamation plants (WRPs), two of them (WRP-7 and WRP-10) generate recycled water for irrigation of golf courses and large landscaped areas. WRP-4 became operational in 1986 and serves the communities from La Quinta to Mecca. WRP-4 effluent is not currently recycled; however, it will be in the future when the demand for recycled water is developed, and tertiary treatment is constructed. The other two WRPs serve communities near the Salton Sea. A sixth WRP (WRP-9) was decommissioned in July 2015. The wastewater treated by CVWD from 2018 through 2022 is shown in Table 3-9. Table 3-10 shows the recycled water produced by CVWD from 2018 through 2022. CVWD will continue to expand its recycled water program by connecting additional recycled water customers to meet the non -potable water demands in the western and eastern portions of the Coachella Valley. Table 3-9: Wastewater Treated by CVV. Wastewater (AF)_1111� 201jk 202J& 2021 -� 19,006 18,858 18,758 - 28 453 Table 3-10: Recycled Water Produced by CVWD 3.5 Conservation Water conservation, and the reduced groundwater production associated with water conservation, benefits the groundwater basin and is an important element of the Alternative Plans and the 2020 Regional UWMP. CVWD has utilized several programs to ensure water conservation within its service area. CVWD has implemented allocation -based conservation water pricing (i.e., tiered rates) to prevent water waste or unreasonable use of water. In addition, CVWD's indoor rebate programs are designed to assist homeowners and commercial customers reduce water usage by upgrading toilets, replacing inefficient devices, and installing new technology to improve efficiency. CVWD also has outdoor rebate programs that are designed to assist homeowners, homeowners associations, and commercial customers reduce outdoor water usage by converting turf to desert landscaping, installing smart irrigation controllers, and improving the efficiency of irrigation systems. CVWD offers seminars, workshops, and classes to help educate the public regarding the need for water conservation and the conservation programs that are available. �.6 Landscape Ordinance CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5 requires a series of reduction methods, including requirements that new developments install weather -based irrigation controllers that automatically adjust watering. Additional requirements include setbacks of spray emitters from impervious surfaces, as well as use of porous rock and gravel buffers between grass and curbs to eliminate run-off onto streets. With the exception of turf, all landscaping including groundcover and shrubbery must be irrigated with a drip system. Also, the maximum water allowance for landscaped areas through the CVWD service area has been reduced. This reduction goal requires that developers maximize the use of native and other drought -tolerant landscape materials and minimize use of more water -intensive landscape features, including turf and fountains. �3 Water Shortage contingency Plakining Based on the experiences from the 2013-2015 drought, CVWD's domestic Water Shortage Contingency Plan provides the shortage levels summarized in Table 3-11. The trigger levels used to determine the water shortage level depend on the local water situation or applicable State mandates. CVWD has a diverse mix of water supplies and benefits from a large groundwater basin providing storage. CVWD's groundwater replenishment program replenishes the basin to 29 454 increase groundwater storage during wet years and that supply is available for use during dry years. Table 3-11: Urban Water Shortage Contingency Plan Shortage Levels Level_ 1 Shortage Rangehortage Up to 10% .. ly Condition Normal water supplies 2 Up to 20% Slightly limited water supplies 3 Up to 30% Moderately limited water supplies 4 Up to 40% Limited water supplies 5 Up to 50% Significantly limited water supplies 6 Up to 60% Severe shortage or catastrophic incident Source: 2020 CVWD Water Shortage Contingency Plan t Public Water bysterr, (Projected Supply and Demand Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) projects that a majority of its urban potable water uses will continue to be supplied from local groundwater. In addition to groundwater, CVWD has secured imported water supplies from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River, and recycled water from water reclamation plants. These imported and recycled water supplies are used to meet CVWD's non -potable water demands and to replenish the groundwater basin. 4.1 Projected Urban Demand and Supply The following tables from the 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (Regional UWMP) provide the CVWD's projected water supplies and demands. Potable water demand projections for the CVWD service area are summarized in Table 4-1. ouic -.L. CVWD Projected Urban Retail Potable Demands Luse Type dllnL__ Single Family I 2025 60,142 Projected 2030 63,824 Water Use 2035 67,331 04g 69,816 A 71,695 Multi -Family 6,873 7,245 7,742 8,267 9,045 CII 7,060 7,244 7,438 7,709 7,985 Landscape 34,193 36,205 38,226 39,865 41,516 Other 1,457 1,563 1,670 1,755 1,840 Losses 13,736 14,501 1 15,222 15,670 16,085 Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan A summary of existing and planned urban water supply volumes by source are presented in Table 4-2. It should be noted that the supplies and demands presented in the tables below include recycled water delivered to CVWD's non -potable customers based on the DWR standardized tables and 2020 UWMP Guidebook. DWR requires the supply reliability table to include both potable and recycled water, however, CVWD's recycled water is not a potable water supply and is not delivered to CVWD's potable water customers. Instead, recycled water is used to offset the 30 455 groundwater pumping of private well owners (mainly for golf course and landscape irrigation) to eliminate overdraft. These projections were based on 2010 U.S. Census Data, DWR's Population Tool, the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) 2020 Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan, and seasonal occupancy data from the Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau. Table 4-2: CVWD Projected Urban Water Supplies Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 4.2 Normal, Single -Dry, Multiple -Dry Year Comparison The following tables from the 2020 Regional UWMP provide CVWD's projected water supplies and demands in a normal year, single -dry year, and multiple -dry years. During normal years, CVWD will be able to meet current and future urban water demand needs projected in the 2020 Regional UWMP through groundwater pumping and recycled water as shown in Table 4-3. Table 4-3: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison Source: 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Note: CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. During single -dry years, CVWD will be able to meet current and future urban water demand needs through groundwater pumping and recycled water as shown in Table 4-4. Water supplies during the single -dry year are 100 percent reliable. CVWD's groundwater replenishment program replenishes the basin to increase groundwater storage during wet years and that supply is available for use during dry years. Thus, the supply and demand comparison for the single -dry year is the same as the normal year. 31 , Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Source: 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Note: CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. During single -dry years, CVWD will be able to meet current and future urban water demand needs through groundwater pumping and recycled water as shown in Table 4-4. Water supplies during the single -dry year are 100 percent reliable. CVWD's groundwater replenishment program replenishes the basin to increase groundwater storage during wet years and that supply is available for use during dry years. Thus, the supply and demand comparison for the single -dry year is the same as the normal year. 31 , Table 4-4: Single -Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison Source: 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Note: CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. During multiple -dry years, CVWD will be able to meet current and future urban water demand needs through groundwater pumping and recycled water as shown in Table 4-5. Similar to the single -dry year, the multiple -dry year water supply reliability is 100 percent. Thus, the supply and demand comparison for the multiple -dry years is the same as the normal year. CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. 32 457 TARIF ME W l IEMW 9=7 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 . Source: 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Note: CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. During multiple -dry years, CVWD will be able to meet current and future urban water demand needs through groundwater pumping and recycled water as shown in Table 4-5. Similar to the single -dry year, the multiple -dry year water supply reliability is 100 percent. Thus, the supply and demand comparison for the multiple -dry years is the same as the normal year. CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. 32 457 Table 4-5: Multiple -Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison Source: 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Note: CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. CVWD's total current urban water demand was 109,607 acre-feet (AF) for 2022, including 100,066 AF of groundwater and 9,541 AF of recycled water. 33 458 A 2025 20300 2035 040 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 First Year Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Second Year Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Third Year Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Fourth Year Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Fifth Year Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 I AL Source: 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Note: CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. CVWD's total current urban water demand was 109,607 acre-feet (AF) for 2022, including 100,066 AF of groundwater and 9,541 AF of recycled water. 33 458 Project Descriptior? The Coral Mountain Project (Project) is situated in the easterly portion of the Coachella Valley within the corporate limits of the City of La Quinta, Riverside County as shown in Figure 5-1: Project Regional Location Map. The Project is surrounded on the north and west by developed residential land within the City of La Quinta's jurisdiction. Vacant land, including Coral Mountain, lies east of the Project, and scattered residential and vacant land lies south of the Project. The Project and the surrounding properties all are situated within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of La Quinta. The Project is bounded by Madison Street on the west, Avenue 58 on the north, and Avenue 60 to the south as shown in Figure 5-2: Project Vicinity Map. The Project is located in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. The Project proposes to develop approximately 387 acres of vacant land to include three planning areas: Planning Area III (PA -III) Residential, Planning Area V (PA -V) Neighborhood Commercial, and Planning Area VI (PA -VI) Golf/Open Space. PA -III consists of 191.8 acres of land and will allow the construction of up to 750 single family attached and detached dwellings and affiliated amenities. In addition to residential acreage, PA III also includes a 5.9 -acre sports club, a 4 -acre golf club, a 3 -acre active amenity park, two restaurants located inside the sports club and golf club, a 12 -acre lake and approximately 2 acres of golf maintenance area. PA -V consists of 7.7 acres of land that will include 60,000 square feet of publicly accessible neighborhood commercial building space. PA -VI consists of approximately 184.9 acres of land and will be developed into a championship length 18 -hole golf course and ancillary facilities such as a golf academy, practice range, chipping, putting facilities, and irrigation lakes as shown in Figure 5-3: Project Site Plan and Table 5-1: Project Land Use Summary. 34 459 ;.hN, - 22 Figure 5-1: Project Regional Location Map ODSEA7 hOT �A7NFLRA PAL✓, C17Y SLPF_f 46s ` r IMNCHO %IF--, MIRAGE PALL is L'CSERT I 74 WELLS " COACRELLA LA 4UfNTA .1 MSA CONSULTING, iNC. ` REGIONAL LOCATION MAP i- tiIVII.,N[:INkcti'v4 a � � auwvkntic u fl r CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT Mi WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT 35 460 Figure 5-2: Project Vicinity Map 36 461 Residcnfial Land Area : ± 141.8 Acros Figure 5-3: Project Site Plan WANAVA—EQUE-1 SOURCES: VITA, 0 M K GOLF DESIGN MSA CONSULTING, INC.� SITE PLAN �CIVII FtiXIN� FRINC7I ANOSUGVFYINC: o 600 CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT F WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT 37 462 Table 5-1: Project Land Use Summary Planning Area Specific Plan/Land Use Designation i 11(EDUs/Acre) Single Family Residential Land Area (Acres) Target Density Estimated Dwelling Units & (EDUs) Non - Residential Building Area ii (ft2) Active A - Park1 1 1 1 1 Golf Maintenance1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 111 Recreational 1 11 1 1 NeighborhoodCommercial1 1 1 .1 111 •lf Course Lake1 1 1 1 1 Publicof 1 1 1 1 - 106,100 *Restaurant acreage is 0.0 due to proposed restaurants being included within either the sports club or golf club. Project Water Demands The Coral Mountain Project (Project) proposes to develop 387 acres of land and convert it into 164.9 acres of single-family residential land use, 5.9 acres for a sports club, 4 acres for a golf club, 3 acres for an active amenity park, 12 -acre lake, 2 acres for golf maintenance, and two restaurants located inside the sports club and golf club, and convert 181.9 acres into a golf course area and 7.7 acres into a neighborhood commercial land area. 6.1 Projected Inuuur Residential Water uemana The projected indoor residential unit usage for this Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) is based on indoor water use performance standards as provided in the California Water Code (CWC) for residential water demand Water Code Section 10910 approved November 10, 2009, codified in CWC section 10608.20 (b)(2)(A). The projected indoor residential water demand for the Project totals 108.12 acre-feet per year (AFY) as shown in Table 6-1. SB 606 and AB 1668 established guidelines for efficient water use and a framework for the implementation and oversight of the new standards. Based on results of the Indoor Residential Water Use Study, DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board jointly recommended that the indoor residential standard remain at 55 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) through 2024 and decline to 47 gpcd in 2025 and to 42 gpcd in 2030. W 463 Table 6-1: Projected Indoor Residential Water Demand 1 CA Department of Finance Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2023 for the City of La Quinta Z CA Indoor Water Use Performance Standard 6.2 Projected Indoor Commercial and Industrial Water Demand The projected indoor commercial and industrial unit usage for this WSA are based on the American Water Works Association Research Foundations (AWWARF's) Commercial and Industrial End Uses of Water. The projected indoor commercial and industrial water demand for the Project totals 15.81 AFY as shown in Table 6-2 below. Table 6-2: Projected Indoor Commercial and Industrial Water Demand Planning Area Maximum ndoor Area Number Interior Water Water Water Demand Demand Demand 2 (ft) of Rooms Floor Spac1, per Unit Factor' (gpd) (AFY) Restaurants Golf Maintenance Neighborhood Commercial 106,100 14,116.44 15.81 1 AWWARF Commercial and Industrial End Uses of Water, 2000. 6.3 Projected Outdoor Irrigation Water Demand The projected outdoor irrigation water usage is based on the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) equation from Appendix D of Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.5, which meets the water conservation goals of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). The projected outdoor irrigation water demand for the Project is 339.89 AFY as shown in Table 6-3 below. 39 464 Table 6-3: Projected Outdoor Irrigation Water Demand 2 Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF) from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D 3 Conversion Factor from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D 6.4 Projected Outdoor Water Features Demand The projected outdoor irrigation water usage for the golf course and recreational lake is based on the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) equation from Appendix D of Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.5. The projected outdoor water features demand for the Project is 753.19 AFY, as shown in Table 6-4 below. Table 6-4: Projected Outdoor Recreational Water Demand Landscaped Area ETo nverSion Water Water Planning Area (ft2) in/yr) ETAF 2 LFactor Demand pd Demandq Golf Course - Single Family 5,387,283.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 264,454.79 296.23 Sports Club 205,603.20 64.22 0.45 0.62 10,092.80 11.31 Golf Club 156,816.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 7,697.90 8.62 Active 104,544.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 5,131.93 5.75 Amenity Park 64.22 0.45 0.62 6,414.91 7.19 Lake Golf 52,272.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 2,565.97 2.87 Maintenance 64.22 1.1 0.62 62,723.59 70.26 Lake Neighborhood 201,247.20 64.22 0.45 0.62 9,878.97 11.07 Commercial 672,401.67 753.19 i Reference Evanotransniration (ETo) for Public Right of 73,616.40 64.22 0.45 0.62 3,613.73 4.05 Way Total :0 303,436.07 339.89 i Reference Evaootransoiration (ETo) for ETo Zone 3 from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5. Aooendix C 2 Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF) from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D 3 Conversion Factor from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D 6.4 Projected Outdoor Water Features Demand The projected outdoor irrigation water usage for the golf course and recreational lake is based on the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) equation from Appendix D of Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.5. The projected outdoor water features demand for the Project is 753.19 AFY, as shown in Table 6-4 below. Table 6-4: Projected Outdoor Recreational Water Demand 2 Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF) from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D of 1.0 for special areas, 1.1 for a stationary body of water, and 1.2 for a moving body of water 3 Conversion Factor from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D 40 465 14, Conversion Water Water Planning Area Water. Featur Area (ft2) ETo ) 1 in/yr 2 ETAF Factor 3 Demand Demand Golf Course - 3,571,920.00 64.22 1.0 1/ft2) 0.62 p, 389,646.56 436.46 Irrigated Turf Golf Course - 4,351,644.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 213,616.60 239.28 Other Areas Golf Course 130,680.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 6,414.91 7.19 Lake Recreational 522,720.00 64.22 1.1 0.62 62,723.59 70.26 Lake Total 672,401.67 753.19 i Reference Evanotransniration (ETo) for ETo Zone 3 from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5. Annendix C 2 Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF) from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D of 1.0 for special areas, 1.1 for a stationary body of water, and 1.2 for a moving body of water 3 Conversion Factor from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D 40 465 6.5 Projected Total Water Demand The total projected water demand for the Project is 1,217.01 AFY, or 3.14 acre-feet per acre, as shown in Table 6-5 below. Table 6-5: Projected Total Water Demand *Restaurant acreage is 0.0 due to proposed restaurants being located within either the sports club or golf club. 6.6 Projected Water Sources Project domestic water supplies and associated landscape irrigation supplies will be provided from groundwater from the Indio Subbasin in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin via Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) potable water distribution system. This source will serve all indoor and private landscape uses. Canal water and/or well water will serve the golf course and the community common area and streetscape landscape if available. 41 Indoor Land Indoor Commercial Outdoor Outdoor Total Planning Are Area Residential Demand and Industrial Irrigation Demand Recreational Demand Water Demand (Acres (AFY) Demand (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) NMW6(AFYM)J=N1 1 1 11 �1 Restaurants 1 11 1 11 1 1 11 1 11 Golf 11 1 11 ® 1 11 Maintenance Neighborhood Commercial Golf Course IrrigateclTurf Golf •• •1 1 11 1 11 1 11 -Course • ._ Recreational 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 1 Lake Public Right • .1 111 111 1 111 1 Way Golf Course11 1 11 1 11 1 11 Lake Active11 1 11 off off Amenity��M 87.0 108.1 *Restaurant acreage is 0.0 due to proposed restaurants being located within either the sports club or golf club. 6.6 Projected Water Sources Project domestic water supplies and associated landscape irrigation supplies will be provided from groundwater from the Indio Subbasin in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin via Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) potable water distribution system. This source will serve all indoor and private landscape uses. Canal water and/or well water will serve the golf course and the community common area and streetscape landscape if available. 41 Table 6-6: Projected Water Sources 6.7 Conservation Measures The landscape guidelines for the Coral Mountain Project emphasize non-invasive drought tolerant plant materials that are climate -appropriate, water efficient, and sustainable. The plant palette throughout the Specific Pan area shall utilize low maintenance and low water. The landscaping and irrigation plans and system shall comply with all CVWD and County ordinances relating to water efficiency and the Project shall use automated irrigation systems with irrigation timers, and two drip or bubbler heads per tree to provide efficient deep -root irrigation. 6.7.1 Desert Landscaping & Drought Tolerant Plants The need for progressive water conservation and control of landscape maintenance costs has prompted the greater use of native and non-native drought -tolerant planting materials within the Project. The Coachella Valley and CVWD have been a leader in the promotion of these desert landscape materials and design themes, most notably in CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.4. As a result, thoughtful and conservative management and use of water resources have guided development of this Project landscape plan. 42 '.l Incloor *utaoor Indoor Outdoor Planning Area Area Residential Commercial Irrigation Recreational (Acres) 11 Demand and industrial Demand Water Demand is CVWD Demand 1 Single Family Residential 164.90 CVWD Domestic Domestic Water System Water System Sports Club 5.90 CVWD Domestic Canal Water and/or Well Golf Club 4.00 Golf 2.00 Maintenance Water System Water Neighborhood 7.70 Commercial Restaurants 0.00 Active Amenity 3.00 Park Canal Water and/or Well Public Right of 2.60 Way Water Golf Course 181.90 Golf Course 3.00 Canal Water Lake and/or Well Recreational 12.00 Water Lake 6.7 Conservation Measures The landscape guidelines for the Coral Mountain Project emphasize non-invasive drought tolerant plant materials that are climate -appropriate, water efficient, and sustainable. The plant palette throughout the Specific Pan area shall utilize low maintenance and low water. The landscaping and irrigation plans and system shall comply with all CVWD and County ordinances relating to water efficiency and the Project shall use automated irrigation systems with irrigation timers, and two drip or bubbler heads per tree to provide efficient deep -root irrigation. 6.7.1 Desert Landscaping & Drought Tolerant Plants The need for progressive water conservation and control of landscape maintenance costs has prompted the greater use of native and non-native drought -tolerant planting materials within the Project. The Coachella Valley and CVWD have been a leader in the promotion of these desert landscape materials and design themes, most notably in CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.4. As a result, thoughtful and conservative management and use of water resources have guided development of this Project landscape plan. 42 '.l 6.7.2 Project Specific Water Conservation MeasureF A broad range of design components and mitigation measures will be implemented to address the Project's potential impacts on water resources. Project developers will be required to implement the following measures in order to assure the most efficient use of water resources and to meet and maintain the 2010 CVWMP Update goals throughout the life of the Project: • To the greatest extent practicable, native plant materials and other drought -tolerant plants shall be used in all non -turf areas of Project landscaping. Large expanses of lawn and other water -intensive landscaped areas shall be kept to the minimum necessary and consistent with the functional and aesthetic needs of the Project, while providing soil stability to resist erosion. • The installation and maintenance of efficient on-site irrigation systems will minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize effective watering of plant roots. Drip irrigation and moisture detectors will be used to the greatest extent practicable to increase irrigation efficiency. • The use of low -flush toilets and water -conserving showerheads and faucets shall be required in conformance with Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code, Title 20, California Code of Regulations Section 1601(b), and applicable sections of Title 24 of the State Code. 6.7.3 Golf Course Irrigation System Conservation The irrigation system has been planned to meet the standards of a modern golf course irrigation system and enable precise water management through multiple measures as listed: • The irrigation system will feature individual irrigation head control, allowing precise control over each sprinkler. • A central control computer system will be implemented to manage all sprinkler heads and valves efficiently. • An onsite weather station will be integrated into the system, enabling the irrigation program to provide the exact amount of water needed based on real-time weather conditions. • During challenging water restriction episodes, the system will have the capability to exclusively water greens and trees if required. • Modern control monitoring through internet-based software will be incorporated into the pumping facilities for efficient monitoring and control. • The design of the irrigation system will adhere to the stringent criteria identified by CVW D. 43 .; 7 Availability of Sufficient Supplies 7.1 Water Supply Assessment Based on the analysis in this Water Supply Assessment (WSA), the projected total water demand for the Coral Mountain Project (Project) will be 1,217.01 acre-feet per year (AFY), or 3.14 acre- feet per acre. CVWD's long-term water management planning ensures that adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water needs within its service area. CVWD's current urban water demand was 100,066 acre-feet (AF) for 2022, and the projected urban water demand by 2045 is 148,166 AFY. This Project's water demand of 1,217.01 AFY accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of the total planned increase in demand of 48,100 AFY by 2045. This WSA provides an assessment of the availability of sufficient water supplies during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years over a 20 -year projection to meet the projected demands of the Project, in addition to existing and planned future water demands of CVWD, as required by Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 1262. This WSA also includes identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, and agreements relevant to the identified water supply for the Project and quantities of water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, contracts, and agreements. This WSA has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of SB 610 and SB 1262 by MSA Consulting in consultation with CVWD and the City. This WSA does not relieve the Project from complying with all applicable state, county, city, and local ordinances or regulations including the CVWD Landscape Ordinance, and indoor water use performance standards provided in the California Water Code now or in the future. Consistent with the provisions of SB 610, neither this WSA nor its approval shall be construed to create a right or entitlement to water service or any specific level of water service, and shall not impose, expand, or limit any duty concerning the obligation of CVWD to provide certain service to its existing customers or to any future potential customers. This WSA does not constitute an agreement to provide water service to the Project, and does not entitle the Project, Project applicant, or any other person or entity to any right, priority, or allocation in any supply, capacity, or facility. To receive water service, the Project will be subject to an agreement with CVWD, together with any and all applicable fees, charges, plans and specifications, conditions, and any and all other applicable CVWD requirements in place and as amended from time to time. Nor does anything in this WSA prevent or otherwise interfere with CVWD's discretionary authority to declare a water shortage emergency in accordance with the Water Code. This WSA will be reviewed every five years, or in the event that the water planning assumptions have changed, until the Project begins construction on all planning areas to ensure it remains accurate and no significant changes to either the Project or available water supply has occurred. The Project applicant shall notify CVWD when construction begins on all planning areas. M 469 7.2 Requirement for Written Verification of Water Supply Availability Government Code §66473.7 requires that a Written Verification of Water Supply (WV) be prepared in connection with the approval of a development agreement or tentative map that includes a subdivision. A subdivision is defined as a proposed residential development of more than 500 units, except that for a water agency with fewer than 5,000 service connections, a subdivision includes a residential development project that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the agency's existing service connections. This WSA is not a WV. If the City determines that the Project or any planning area meets the definition of a subdivision and therefore requires preparation of a WV, the City must request a WV prepared by CVWD in compliance with the requirements of SB 221. This WSA may be used to support the WV. Depending on circumstances including but not limited to new water efficiency regulations or changes in water supply availability, CVWD may recommend preparation of an updated supply and demand assessment to support the WV. 45 470 8 References American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water, 2000 California Department of Water Resources, Final State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2019, August 2020 California Department of Water Resources, Results of the Indoor Residential Water Use Study, November 2021 California Department of Water Resources, State Water Project Historical Table A Allocations, Water Years 1996-2023, April 2023 Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella Water Authority, Desert Water Agency, Indio Water Authority, Mission Springs Water District, Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company, 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Systems Consulting, Inc., June 2021 Coachella Valley Water District, 2023-2024 Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, April 2023 Coachella Valley Water District, Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, July 2020 Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella Water Authority, Desert Water Agency, and Indio Water Authority, Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022, Todd Groundwater Inc., March 2023 Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella Water Authority, Desert Water Agency, and Indio Water Authority, 2022 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update/Alternative Plan Update, Todd Groundwater Inc., December 2021 Coachella Valley Water District, Desert Water Agency, and Mission Springs Water District, Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Inc., February 2023 United States Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Reports for Arizona, California, and Nevada 471 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF 750 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A GOLF COURSE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE ON 387 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, NORTH OF AVENUE 60, AND EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET CASE NUMBERS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000; ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000; SPECIFIC PLAN 2023-0003 (SP2003-037 AMENDMENT NO. 5); TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 APPLICANT: CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on January 23, 2024, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CM Wave Development LLC for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Agreement for a master planned community on 386 acres of a 929 acre area located south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, and east and west of Madison Street, more particularly described as: APN 764-200-076, 764-210-007, 764-210-028, 764-210-029, 766-070-003, 766-070-006, 766-070-012, 766-070-014, 766-080-001, 766-080-002,766-080-004 & 766-080-005 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on January 12, 2024, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site, and emailed or mailed to all interested parties who have requested notification relating to the project; and General Plan Amendment 2023-1000 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said General Plan Amendment [Exhibit A]: 1. The map amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan insofar as the Amendment makes no changes to the land use designations allowed within the lands west of Madison Street, south of 472 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000; ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000; SPECIFIC PLAN 2023-0003 (SP2003-037 AMENDMENT NO. 5); TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 (37815); DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 PROJECT: CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET ADOPTED: PAGE 2 OF 6 Avenue 58 and north of Avenue 60, as shown in Exhibit A, and only reallocates their distribution as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Land Use Summarv* Land Use Zoning Existing Proposed Change Acres Acres acres General Neighborhood 8.4 7.7 -0.7 Commercial Commercial CN Low Density Low Density 204.2 191.8 -12.4 Residential Residential RL Open Space Golf Course (GC) 171.9 187.5 +15.6 Recreation *Note that Existing acreage is calculated on net (384.5 acres) and Proposed is calculated on gross 387 acres). 2. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare because the community will be entirely self-contained and of high quality, and will include homes, a golf course and perimeter improvements and streets consistent and complementary to improvements surrounding the site. 3. The Land Use designations are suitable and appropriate for the subject property, as they are identical to those currently allowed on the affected parcels. 4. Approval of the General Plan Amendment is warranted because the configuration of uses has marginally changed, and consistency with the conceptual plan for the project is required. Zone Change 2023-1000 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Zone Change [Exhibit B]: 1. The zone map change is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, as described above. 2. Approval of the zone map change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare because the community will be entirely self-contained and of high quality, and will include homes, a golf course and perimeter improvements and streets consistent and complementary to improvements surrounding the site. 473 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000; ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000; SPECIFIC PLAN 2023-0003 (SP2003-037 AMENDMENT NO. 5); TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 (37815); DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 PROJECT: CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET ADOPTED: PAGE 3 OF 6 3. The zone map change is compatible with the zoning on adjacent properties as it continues the pattern of master planned communities envisioned in the General Plan for southern areas of La Quinta. 4. The zone map change is suitable and appropriate for the subject property because the property is essentially flat, and the same land uses as currently permitted will be developed. 5. Approval of the zone map change is warranted because the configuration of uses has marginally changed, and consistency with the conceptual plan for the project is required. Specific Plan 2023-1000 (Amendment No. 5 to Specific Plan 2003-037, Andalusia) WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Specific Plan Amendment [Exhibit C]: 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, insofar as the land uses in the west side of the Specific Plan will continue to develop with the land uses shown in the General Plan Land Use Map, and consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. 2. Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, as development already occurs within this Specific Plan, and its build out will be consistent with that development. 3. Specific Plan 2003-037, Amendment No. 5 is compatible with zoning on surrounding properties, which also allows residential units and golf course uses. 4. Specific Plan 2003-037, Amendment No. 5, is suitable and appropriate for the subject property, as development is consistent with the east side of the Specific Plan area and will continue to build out as originally intended. Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning 474 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000; ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000; SPECIFIC PLAN 2023-0003 (SP2003-037 AMENDMENT NO. 5); TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 (37815); DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 PROJECT: CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET ADOPTED: PAGE 4 OF 6 Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Tentative Tract Map [Exhibit D]: 1. The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as amended, and implements the Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Open Space land use designations allowed on the site. 2. The design and improvement of the Tentative Tract Map for financing purposes only are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan with the implementation of recommended conditions of approval. 3. The design of the Tentative Tract Map is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, nor substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Coral Mountain Resort EIR found that impacts of Alternative No. 2 to the environment could be reduced to less than significant levels, with the exception of aesthetics, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled. The City has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts to these resources, to be identified in the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. 4. The design of the Tentative Tract Mapis not likely to cause serious public health problems, insofar as the map is for financing purposes only, and will be required to comply with all laws, standards and requirements associated with sanitary sewer collection, water quality and other public health issues in subsequent maps, site development permits and other approvals necessary for development of the land. 5. The design and improvements required for the Tentative Tract Map will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. All roadway improvements, easements, if any and surrounding improvements will be completed to City standards. 6. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 13 of the City's Subdivision Regulations Code, minimum lot area requirements, and other applicable provisions of Title 9 of the City's Zoning Code, and the Subdivision Map Act. 7. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Development Agreement 2023-1000 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 475 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000; ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000; SPECIFIC PLAN 2023-0003 (SP2003-037 AMENDMENT NO. 5); TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 (37815); DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 PROJECT: CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET ADOPTED: PAGE 5 OF 6 and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Development Agreement [Exhibit E]: 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan and the Andalusia Specific Plan, Amendment No. 5. 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed in the Andalusia Specific Plan and implements the Specific Plan's design features. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices because it will create a revenue stream to assure that public safety costs incurred by the City for the project will be paid for by the project. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare, as it provides for the long term ordered development of a master planned community. 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values insofar as it will ensure that development occurring on the site will generate revenues and assure high quality development. 6. The Development Agreement will have a positive fiscal impact on the city by paying mitigation fees for services it requires, and additional Transient Occupancy Tax and Sales Tax revenues. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findingsof the Planning Commission in this case; and SECTION 2. That the above project is consistent with Alternative No. 2 of EA 2019-0010, Coral Mountain Resort Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021020310); and SECTION 3. That it does hereby recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2023-1000, Zone Change 2023-1000, Specific Plan Amendment 2023-0003, Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005 and Development Agreement 2023-1000 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval [Exhibit F]. EWT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000; ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000; SPECIFIC PLAN 2023-0003 (SP2003-037 AMENDMENT NO. 5); TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 (37815); DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 PROJECT: CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET ADOPTED: PAGE 6OF6 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on January 23, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California STEPHEN T. NIETO, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California 477 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000 OS -N LDR LDR q EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE OS -R OPEN SPACE RECREATION CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE OS -R OPEN SPACE RECREATION CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NOTE: THIS GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT WILL ONLY REFINE EXISTING LAND USE BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE WEST TRACT OF SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067. ALL EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE WEST TRACT WILL REMAIN UNALTERED. EXHIBIT A IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37815 EXHIBIT DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2023 DATA TABLE APPLICANT / LAND OWNER: CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT, LLC. ADDRESS: 2440 JUNCTION PLACE, SUITE 200 BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 CONTACT: GARRETT SIMON TELEPHONE: (970) 596-6642 EXHIBIT PREPARER: MSA CONSULTING, INC. ADDRESS: 34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 CONTACT: PAUL DEPALATIS, AICP TELEPHONE: (760) 320-9811 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 764 -200 -076,764 -210 -007,764 -210 -028,764 -210-029,766-070-003,766-070-006,766-070-012,766-070-014, 766-080-001, 766-080-002, 766-080-004 & 766-080-005 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 27 & 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN. 0' 1200' 2400' SCALE 1 "=1200' CITY OF LA QUINTA .VQ0JRV'c VICINITY MAP N.T.S. SITE w O COUNTY OF Z RIVERSIDE O- A 58TH AVENUE r� AVENUE 1 478 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000 i 58TH AVENUE id 1 EXISTING ZONING GC GOLF COURSE CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL RL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED ZONING GC GOLF COURSE CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL RL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NOTE: THIS ZONING MAP AMENDMENT WILL ONLY REFINE EXISTING ZONE BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE WEST TRACT OF SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067. ALL EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS FOR THE WEST TRACT WILL REMAIN UNALTERED. EXHIBIT B IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37815 EXHIBIT DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2023 DATA TABLE APPLICANT / LAND OWNER: CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT, LLC. ADDRESS: 2440 JUNCTION PLACE, SUITE 200 BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 CONTACT: GARRETT SIMON TELEPHONE: (970) 596-6642 EXHIBIT PREPARER: MSA CONSULTING, INC. ADDRESS: 34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 CONTACT: PAUL DEPALATIS, AICP TELEPHONE: (760) 320-9811 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 764 -200 -076,764 -210 -007,764 -210 -028,764 -210-029,766-070-003,766-070-006,766-070-012,766-070-014, 766-080-001, 766-080-002, 766-080-004 & 766-080-005 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 27 & 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN. 0' 1200' 2400' SCALE 1"=1200' Z w 00 COUNTY OF w Z RIVERSIDE U- O LU 54TH AVENUE CITY OF LA QUINTA w G� Z AIRPORT BLVD O SQ < VICINITY MAP N.T.S. 58TH AVENUE !W60TH ,---1 rAVENUE 1 479 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX SPECIFIC PLAN 2023-0003 (SP2003-037 AMENDMENT NO. 5) SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067 NOVEMBER 2023 AMENDMENT V OF ANDALUSIA AT CORAL MOUNTAIN A Development by: CORAL OPTION I, LLC SUNRISE LQ, LLC MBGDWAVE, LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT, LLC Prepared for: THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT C 480 PROJECT TECHNICAL T AM ANDALUSIA (EAST TRACT) SUNRISE LQ, LLC 300 Eagle Dance Circle Palm Desert, CA 92211 MBGDWAVE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIABILTY COMPANY 23622 Calabasas Road Suite 200 Calabasas, CA 91302 CffY OF LA QUINTA COM1 UNI"T'Y DEVELOPAd NT DEPARTMENT Les Johnson Community Development Director 78-495 Calle Tampico Le Quints, CA 92253 MASTER PLANNING Hart Hoerton I Union Street Floor 3 San Frmcisca, CA 94111 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 12;GA Le3xdsoape Architects, Inc. 73061 El Paeo Suite 214 Palm Desert, CA 92260 CrM ENGINEERING Watson Engineering 50-200 Monroe Street Indio, CA 92201 ii CORAL MOUNTAIN CLUB (WEST TRACT) CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT, LLC 2001 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 401 Santa Monica, CA 90403 MERIWETHER COMPANIES 2001 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 401 Santa Monica, CA 90403 ENTITLEMENTS MSA Consulting, Inc. 34200 Bob Hope Drive a Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 CITY OF LA QUINTA DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Danny Castro Design and Development Director 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 DMK GOLF DESIGN, INC. 2755 NW Crossing Drive Suite 225 Bend, OR 97703 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND PLANNING VITA, Inc. 181 3rd Street Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 Specific Plan 03-067 481 L '`ABLE OF CONTENTS nd he 7.7.2Corm/ dal HoduAiLd \uiidiai )LlrnFei ........ i...ai#wi i. .. ,i .f .. ,. .\ ## iY .. .. iY r, art iW 2a7 .3T%P-ed& m0$4)67 Gulf and Cwmtry Club ia fiLes .i..r..r#iia 1.j�7t1 24/4 Rq l She Pbouing L edP" D3� 7 J.iL 482 I WROD�iIvr 1++ i/VxrVrSUMMARY UMM}RY ....... ir i# i� i. i* d�a #ia .a� .ai .a. a4* .�a ...IIF+JI 0. .* i. .* 1.2 1j PURPOSE AND NE ii...... i..,.,....... PROJECTIO xL SETTING.... yY 1,3 � a . r .......... t 1A PROJECr WAS.SET'.SING..................a.i.a#.+.#.,.,..,srt.ii...IA .6 1 PROJECT5�'+��4��RY y 1.6 +.�..(..........,.#..si...... #i*...R.s.*.f*i#..M.rt rtrt si+aei asrt. is rsrarsir ,� 1.7 15��1��11.7Lf�l1�L�Y��L}*F��IT�.%�SIATIV A �rO�{7�si�LkNCE ........... 4. .. 4 a# a. i r#.# t a i 4 rt f i# + a y i W i a r s.\ r i1.9 nd he 7.7.2Corm/ dal HoduAiLd \uiidiai )LlrnFei ........ i...ai#wi i. .. ,i .f .. ,. .\ ## iY .. .. iY r, art iW 2a7 .3T%P-ed& m0$4)67 Gulf and Cwmtry Club ia fiLes .i..r..r#iia 1.j�7t1 24/4 Rq l She Pbouing L edP" D3� 7 J.iL 482 11 iR JL7SlMLSW4; 2.1.1 PbmaingAm .f*. ..................................... ..a.+rra.r.i.iiir....i...irr.iriirr.*..1.2 .r1.2 q ]LAND USE ...... # t e.oaar.�i+.i.iari ri.**4 rt6.#i##r rr##irt.Y....7.3 LLIand Use J Gev ml Plom Context ; ..#i.iiri#ir i .+..itis.#..r#..r..,Y. ,* ?..i2 N}} ftCpwn-al Flea /Lac� /Land .....................t,..r.,,si....�,� L3 JCrvp Gene=] Plan 112nd Use ...i..i.atirr r iaa.....t.tr...r.+i+2.5 2.3 fnNL Y,i.ria..f .. t. .. ., .i i. t.. +.F....fi ... .+i .. i.a .a}.R+#t2 .6 L3.1 ETAf70ain Y#i.......t..............2.6 2,3.2 PrOVORAZvDag.r......•.4... t& .................... -1.7 2A The Land LndSft Th e'1P) ............................ .,......2.8 4..,4 2-44 soR43o Plaun� A ....................... ................2..9, { 2-5 CMCTT?illPLAN ......... ............ a#+.. i.. a.. s......ry3 jI1 L5.1Affp.+m rovem'pu s Y . F ... + .......... , . rt r i .. r Y r .. q W.0 . Y dM 2.L1n, 2,52 Onsift, yipmvemeIIt.........t.*..t.....irir.iii..r....+sir Je5 j LO .... MA9TGR PLAN UrPOR NG HLLM.N=V R a . f .. 4a'i ii .. i i i 4 o .Z7r7 LL L` 2.6.1 Open Space and R=regfiau .... ...... . M7 2.61 1nf�s&udureaIId Utilities P12a ...... ..... tilitiesr1f+i*t* . *sta r+ia2 .3 Wayeraud SewerFl= .a+..a. i ..tta.i R......it.sP. ai.t ,... *i*..**. ..a. r..att F .i....*i,. 8 16.4Fla i`ity i.#r.ii.,,r.i.rf.i..i#..#.a#..#r 4 ri.ariaa#i.f.i#i.#..#0 .M...2�y.J}71 ++6.5 Kati AralGas #*....i#a.i#i#i#.wit.....i..r.r..i.#.#a..i 4..ri....2.29 2t6.6 r ����%�.it.......a.Yr.rt ry.i a.ar... rt.. s..&. 6.6....2.29 7-6+7Pmfuw .r..rra.t...........a....t.r .......a 2f9 2,6.g satool sGrt. ................ R.. r r f i r*..t V4ppVyF 2.6.9 LAW EQfarlemeny.rr..a...ira.sr....is.si..iY 2.6.10Fire PrGtec on.r4 2.6.1. LWruTLw&ks ........:.,........ 30 2#7ANA+D��JALUY,SYIIA (EAST TRACT) 1 Comm..........2.31 Z .1 he Y 3P]xn 03-W Comm aWZm# 5 # . . r . .. . a .. .. .... + i a # . 23 nd he 7.7.2Corm/ dal HoduAiLd \uiidiai )LlrnFei ........ i...ai#wi i. .. ,i .f .. ,. .\ ## iY .. .. iY r, art iW 2a7 .3T%P-ed& m0$4)67 Gulf and Cwmtry Club ia fiLes .i..r..r#iia 1.j�7t1 24/4 Rq l She Pbouing L edP" D3� 7 J.iL 482 f 17.5 Gradhe Eedp ffbadanh ad Guidelines . . .........................2.53 2.7.6 THE CORAL MOUNTAIN (WEST TRACT) PHASING PLAN .......2.54 2.7.7 PLANT MATERIAL PALETTE..................................2.55 2.8 WEST TRACT DESIGN GUIDELINES & STANDARDS .......................2.57 3 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT FYGULATj()NS 3.1 SPECMC PLALNLf}'FRIA J)j jCr .....ai.ii..r i#i,iii ►....a...a.i +A 3.1.X Planning Area I ,,..,,....r,...ii............. si....j...... f.;.+..5j 3.1. Pluxting Area 31 ............................................,.,..+346 33.3 Pbmdm'g,17A�iYa�+............ �r.�ir+i r.�+i. a......*.r*.rr.*ir.s.*X9 3.1,4 Plam-ni g Area IV ................................................ 3.1'$ � A�i.Y�r reae........... ' ,�.5 . i .................r .......... ... M.6 PhmnWt � . • 3 • . q a . 4 a . a • f t ...0 + ........................ � 33 iJw NUMAI ......ar#fear �- y&CMCH }IL1y��, �,�S �I�PI�i�}lCl#1��� +�.r. ryarii+... ss. rMs ►st. rs.r�.Lli 3.3 DRNSTff hRlimFmf *Vwmm :.........iri ri. s....ii►r i.iai.ai rfJ,J.T E 4 GENERAL FLAN CONSUTENCY 4.1 ANDALUSIA (EAST TRACT) GP CONSISTENCY........................................... 4.1 i 42 CORAL MOUNTAIN CLUB (WEST TRACT) GP CONSISTENCY ................ 4.7 I . i Spee'suc Plain 03-067 iv ��_—. 483 Introduction 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Specific Plan 03-067 is organized in four sections. Section 1: Introduction. This section provides an overview of the document, project setting and History, exiting approvals, the legislative authority for the specific plan process and the method of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 2: Plans, Programs, and Guidelines. This section provides the organizational frame- work of the Land Use Plan and related plan exhibits. This section establishes the land use poli- cy for the Specific Plan 03-067 area and provides the design guidelines which set design and development criteria and direction for individual projects within the Specific Plan, boundary. Subsequent to the filing of the Specific Pian documents, separate Use Permit applications will be filed which will delineate development criteria for the golf clubhouse and ancillary support struG- tares and buildings, residential units, and supporting maintenance facility areas. Section 3: Zoning and Development Regulations. This section establishes the zoning appli- cable to land within the Specific Plan 03-067 area. boundary. Development Regulations are pre- sented for each Planning Area within the Specific Plan boundary, Section 4: General Plan Consistency. This section uses the key land use issues statement of each element of the City of La Quinta General PIan,as..the.b.asis.for..evaluating.-he..co tens; of the Specific Plan 03-067 with. the City of La Qu nta General Plan Specific Plmn 03-067 1.1 484 1.2 PURPOSE AND INTENT The Specific Plan presented herein is a comprehensive planning and development document intended to guide development of lands within the Specific Plan 03-067 area boundary.This doc- ument osument establishes development plans, guidelines, and regulations for the project plan area and specifies development criteria for various use permit entitlements scheduled to be developed within the plan area. This document is intended to insure a high quality of development consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City of La Quints General Plan and the goals of the • Implementation of a plan which recognizes, and wherever possible, protects the environmental characteristics of the property; • Creation of a community with a balance of appropriate land uses and a range of housing types; Development of complementary recreational and commercial facilities which will serve a range of housing types; • Development of a community which provides a safe, secure and ecologically sound living environment. This Specific Plan guides the standard of development for Specific Plan 03-067 and is structured to provide a degree of flexibility to address market-driven demand changes. The Specific Plan 03- 067 Amendment U establishes and updates the design and development zoning policies applica- ble to development within, the Specific Plan area described herein and establishes the regulations and standards which serve as the ordinance and development regulation for the property. This documents removes all land area south ofAvenue 60 from the existing Specific Plan land area, which is concurrently being processed ander the "Trilogy at La Quinta, Shea Homes Community," Amendment V adjusts the location and layout of residential, golf and commercial uses on the west side of Madison Street and establishes fresh planning, architectural and landscape design guidelines for that area. The area East of Madison Street (Andalusia) remains as it is with no changes. Revised text is shown in red and revised exhibits are outlined in red, relating to the Western area (Coral Mountain Club) being revised. Any inconsistencies between the revised text and exhibits and the currently adopted Specific Plan document for the area outlined in red are to be interpreted in favor of the revised text and exhibits. I.2 Specific Plan 03-067 485 1.3 PROJECT REGIUN,AL SETTING The Original Specific Pian approval refered to as SP218 approved in Riverside County was locat- ed within the County of Riverside, in the Coachella Valley south and east of the City of La Quints - The Santa Rosa Mountains are located to the west, Saiton Sea to the southeast and Little San Bemardino Mountains to the northeast. The project site included 1,280 acres bounded to the north by Avenue 58, south by Avenue 62, west of Jackson Street and east of Laine Cahuilla County Park The project site is located on the U.S. Geological Survey Indio, La Quints., Martine Mountain and Valerie Quadrangle Maps, including portions of Sections 26,27,2 8, 34 and 35 of Township 6 South and Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. tan hvsdrl.S ,,' Exhibit 1 In 1994 the project was renamed to "Coral Mountain' after a significant landform which has beea historically referred to as "Coral Reef Mountain" This significant geological feature forms part of what is referred to as the `Rernmait of Ancient Shoreline" ou the Recreation, & Thoroughfare Map of Desert Communities. The Coachella Valley is divided into the Upper and Lower Coachella Valley Land. Use Planning Area profiles and the project site is located within the Lower Coachella Land Use Planning Area. The predominant land use in the area is agriculture, including dry farming and citriculture, while a large portion of the Planning Area is vacant, non -irrigated desert. Several sections of land in the Planning Area are ander Indian (Tortes Martinez and Augustine Indian reservations) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ownership. The resulting checkerboard pattern is found throughout eastern Riverside County. Coral Mountain Specific flan Amendment 1 included 1,290 acres of flat, slightly sloping land Approximately 355 acres have been added to the plan area bringing the total acreage of the pre- vious plan to roughly 1635 The elevation ranges from approximately sea level in the western por- tion of the site to 90 feet Below sea level in the eastern portion. Specific Plan 03-062 1.3 486 1.4 PROJECT LOCAL SETTTNG The Specific Plan boundary is within the City of La Quinta, a 31 square mile municipality locat- ed in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. The City, which was incorporated in 1982, is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the, east, by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and Federal and County lands to the South The amended Specific flan project site is generally defined by Avenue 58 along the Northerly boundary, Monroe Street to the East, Avenue 60 to the South, and to the West vacant land and portions of the flood control dike. .'I r Z `ir INDIANWELLS INDIO PALM DE5ERY tu • MKOWER' a Q ES AVENUF 50 CQACHIrLLA AVENUE U 1 LA INjT AVS UE ail AI P22 9LVD f i AVENUE 6B I PROJECT SITE AVENUE W 'Exhibit 2 Specific Nut 03-067 is accessible from Interstate 10 by way of Jefferson Street and Madison Street or Monroe Street The Specific Plan 03-067 project continues the implementation of a network of General Plan roads and infrastructure within the City's Master PIan for development and exemplifies a quality of grovrth that reiterates the City's ernergence as a desert resort community with the highest stan- dards for resort residential and recreational development. 1.4 Speai& Pima 03-067 487 1.5 PROJECT HISTORY A Brief History of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan's Previous Entitlement The property is currently approved for various uses under the name Coral Mountain Specific Plan Amendment I. This Specific Plan is an amendment to the earlier approval document filed in the County of Riverside known as Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 218. The existing Specific Plan under Amendment I incorporates 23 acres of Commercial Use, 689 acres of residential use and associated land, and three golf courses on approximately 567 acres — all uses totaling approximately 1280 acres. The portion of the plan south of Avenue 60 is cur- rently being built out by Shea Homes under The Coral Mountain Specific Plan Amendment 1. Changes to the development scenario delineated in the current Coral Mountain Specific Plan south of Avenue 60 will be addressed in a separate Specific Plan under the name "Trilogy at La Quinta, Shea Homes Community". The Specific Plan 03-067 as proposed herein delineates a bifurcation of the "Trilogy" plan area south of Avenue 60 from the land area north of Avenue 60. The area north of Avenue 60 will use the name Specific Plan 03-067 white the area south of Avenue 60 will acquire the name "Shea Homes" and will be developed within the parameters of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan Amendment 1 document. Amendment II was approved in 2003 by the City of La Quinta and renamed the Specific Plan from "Rancho La Quinta" to "Coral Mountain" Specific Plan. This amendment also removed the Trilogy project from the Specific Plan. Amendment III was approved in 2013 by the City of La Quinta and relocated the east tract golf clubhouse and provided higher density around the east tract golf clubhouse. Amendment IV was approved by the City of La Quinta in 2017 as "Amendment IV of the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan (SP -067)". It revised development standards in Planning Area II around the golf clubhouse to allow for 80 attached/ detached residential villas of up to 2 stories on 16 acres. Amendment V adjusts the location and layout of residential, golf and commercial uses on the West side of Madison Street (Coral Mountain Club) and establishes fresh planning, architectural and landscape design guidelines in that area. The Specific Plan as it applies to land east of Madison Street (Andalusia) remains as it is with no changes. W Specific Plan 03-067 489 The development plan for the Specific Plan 03-067 plan area includes: • The development of two championship gulf courses and Club amenities; • The development of 1,400 residential units; - The development of supporting infrastructure to assure adequate facilities and services. PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067 84, i ... � •' 'tib �. �q. r� � � � �. : 40M � W f - w �`MORRNAI it Y1 111110 29�{VATIOlr Yk N • W1 •iyi AWOM . EXISTING CORAL MOUNTAIN ..,..�. PLAN TO REMAIN34 .0 ' MI , , � x Exhibit 4 rxu•lw►x, w • Specific Plan 03-067 1.7 490 1.6 ENABLING LEGISLATION • The authority to prepare, adopt, and implement the Coral Mountain Specific Flan is granted to the City of La Qninta by the California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457). • As with General Plans, the Planning Commission must hold a public bearing before it can recommend to the City Council the adoption of a Specific Plan or an amendment thereto. The City Council of La Quinta may adopt a Specific Plan and/or an amendment to the Specific Flan by either ordinance or resolution. • The Specific Plan 03-067 is a regulatory document that, once adopted, will serve as the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and Development Codi (Specific Plan) for the amended plan area, As such, the adopted plan, once incorporated by reference, makes consistent the La Quinta General Plan, Upon completion of the Specific Plan amendment and adoption process, future development must be consistent with the, Specific Plan and amendments thereto. Specific Plan 03-067 491 r • The authority to prepare, adopt, and implement the Coral Mountain Specific Flan is granted to the City of La Qninta by the California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457). • As with General Plans, the Planning Commission must hold a public bearing before it can recommend to the City Council the adoption of a Specific Plan or an amendment thereto. The City Council of La Quinta may adopt a Specific Plan and/or an amendment to the Specific Flan by either ordinance or resolution. • The Specific Plan 03-067 is a regulatory document that, once adopted, will serve as the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and Development Codi (Specific Plan) for the amended plan area, As such, the adopted plan, once incorporated by reference, makes consistent the La Quinta General Plan, Upon completion of the Specific Plan amendment and adoption process, future development must be consistent with the, Specific Plan and amendments thereto. Specific Plan 03-067 491 1.7 CEQA COMPLIANCE Specific Plan 03-067 The following statements address the City of La Qua's responsibility to address CEQA com- pliance in the preparation of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact (NEG -DEC). (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shah prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but noire of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred, (b) An addendum to an adopted Negative Declaration ,may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted Negative Declaration (d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the fma1-EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent MR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's fundings on the project, or elsewher© in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. Speoikc'Plan 03-067 1.9 492 Plans, Programs and Guidelines 2.1 THE LAND USE CONCEPT L Residential Uses The project encompasses two residential "neighborhoods" located on either side ofMadison Street. One of. the "neighborhoods" is envisioned as a private country club featuring one of the two 18 hole championship golf courses and corresponding low density neighborhoods, and the other "neighborhoods" is envisioned as a low to medium density residential offering within the second championship course. Product types may include single-family detached and attached units. Residential development is anticipated to occur over approximately 50% of the total acreage within the Specific Plan area with the balance of the property in open space, golf course, and other recreation based land use. 2. Commercial Use Commercial development is proposed to be located on approximately 12.7 acres of land located on the Southwest & Southeast comer ofMadison Street and Avenue 58. Commercial development will consist of a mixture of commercial retail and resort -related commercial development. It is antici- pated that the commercial retail development will include both neighborhood commercial and visi- tor serving commercial uses. 3. Parks/ Open Space/ Recreation The primary recreational component of the development will be two 18 -hole championship golf courses designed by Rees Jones which will occupy approximately 45% of the Specific Plan area. In addition to its function as a recreational component, the golf course will also provide a visual amenity within the Specific Plan area with a significant number of residential units having frontage on and/or views of the golf courses. The conceptual layout for the golf courses is shown on the Master Plan graphic. Individual developments within the Specific Plan area may have addi- tional recreational amenities including tennis and swimming facilities. 4. Circulation The circulation plan for Specific Plan 03-067 is intended -to -utilize -existing -local- area -roadways to provide the access to the Specific Plan area. These roadways include Avenue 60, Avenue 58, Avenue 62, Monroe Street and Madison Street. The internal circulation system will consist of a series of loop roads providing access to the individual residential and recreational components within the Specific Plan area. Additional information is provided in the Circulation element of this document in Section 2.5. Specific Plan 03-067 2.1 493 2.1.1 Planning Area Breakdown TheSpecific Plan 03-467 document breaks the plan area into six distinct sub areas, with corre- sponding "site driven" development regulations and design criteria. These Planning Areas are depicted in Exhibit 4 shown below. Planning Areas within the Specific Plan 43-467 Community Planning Area I is characterized by the club facilities, supporting parking and circulation ele- ments, and associated open space area. Planning Area II is defined by villa residential dwelling units of one and two stories with associ- ated pools and open space areas. Planning Area III is defined by various residential dwelling product types of one and two stories with associated pools, spas and open space areas. Planning Area IV is defined by the golf and open space maintenance facilities. Planning Area V is defined by the neighborhood commercial site and its supporting parking and circulation elements. Planning Area VI addresses golf course areas and the primary stormwater management and reten- tion zone of the plan area. 0 Golf Club & Recreation Amenities ® Multifamily Residential Use ® Residential Use Golf & Open Space Maintenance Facilities Avenue 58 Neighborhooe Golf Course WEST TRACT Avenue 60 EAST TRACT Specific Plan 43-467 494 2.2 LAND USE 2.2,1 Land Use / General Plan Context The Specific Plan 03-067 amends the existing Specific Plan I and implements the City of La Quinta General Plan by bringing together detailed policies and regulations into a focused devel- opment plan for the Specific flan area, The Specific Plan 03-067 is a regulatory document which, when adopted by the City Council of La Quints, governs alI facets of project development includ- ing the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastracture, as well as devel- opment standards and regulations for uses within the plan area. The location and alignment of the land uses and zones depicted herein are diagraanmatic.The precise layout within subsequent site development permit applications for the resort residential unit clusters, recreation amenities and clubhouse and support facilities will determine the actual alignment and adjacency of each land use category. This Specific Plan is prepared as a link between the La Quinta General Plan and subsequent development proposals for individual planning areas within the Specific Plan 03-067. The Land Use Element of the La Quints. General Plan identifies and establishes the City's policy relative to the planned future pattern, intensity, density and relationships of land uses in the City as well as in the Specific Plan 03-067 plan area addressed herein. The purpose of the Land Use Element within the City's General Plan is to establish official City and plan area policy which: Identifies the general types, locations and distribution of land uses desired in La Quixrta at buildout; Identifies standards for land uses relative to population and building density/intensity and the character and compatibility of land uses; Identifies desired courses of action/ strategies which provide the means to implement the community's land use policies while implementing the Specific Plan, The Specific Plan 03-067 establishes consistency with, and implements the City's General Plan by: • Specifying the land uses in the plan area; • Delineating standards for land use compatibility with the City's policies; • Providing the framework for development in an orderly manner; • Making consistent the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Category for the property and the City's General Plan, Specific Plan 03-067 23 495 2.2.2 Prior General Plan / Land Use Prior to Amendment IV, the Existing General Plan/Land Use for the plan area was Low Density Residential allowing 2-4 Dwelling Units per acre. The adopted general plan and corresponding zone classification for Medium and Low Density Residential - LDR allows for a variety of housing types and supporting land use within the resi- dential residential use. Golf use is currently allowed. Residential Land Uses Low Density Residential -LDR Medium density Residential - MDR Golf -G Major Community Facility -MC 2.4 Specific Plan 03-067 496 2.2.3 Proposed General Plan / Land Use The proposed General Plan/Land Use for the plan area provides for Low Density Residential land use allowing up to 4 Dwelling Units per acre as well as sites for a Neighborhood Commercial center. The adopted General Plan classification for Low Density Residential - LDR allows for a variety of housing types and supporting land use within the low density residential residential use. The adopted General Plan classification for Neighborhood Commercial -NC allows for a limited range of neighborhood serving commercial uses. Proposed Land Use Low Density Residential — LDR Neighborhood Commercial — NC Golf - G This section reflects Amendment IV. See Section 2.15, 2.19 and 2.21 for Amendment V Proposed West Tract Land Uses. Specific Plan 03-067 2.5 497 23 PRIOR ZONING 2.3.1 Prior Existing Zoning Prior to Amendment IV, the existing Zoning was as described below. The corresponding zone classification for residential, community facilities, and golf course use allows for a variety of housing types and supporting land use within the plan area. Residentini Land Uses Low Density Residential — RL Medium Density Residential - RM Golf Cpurse - GC Major Community Facility - MC 2..6 Specific Plan 03-067 498 2.3.2 Proposed Zoning The proposed Zoning for the plan area includes Low Density Residential (RL) allowing up to 4 dwelling units per acre and Neighborhood Commercial (CN). The corresponding zone classification for Low Density Residential - RL allows for a variety of housing types and supporting land use within the low density residential use, The corresponding zone classification for Neighborhood Commercial (CN) allows for a limited variety of commer- cial land use and support facilities within the Neighborhood Commercial use. CN- i � --.._..a e - : -tet -•__ N� 1 1 � . --------------- � i i k _..�.._ L.-.._.._..� _.._.,_ _ _. -- �..-.._-......................... _._.._.. .._ Zoning Classifications Low Density Residential — RL Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Golf Course - GC This section reflects Amendment IV. See Section 2.15, 2.19 and 2.21 for Amendment V Proposed West Tract Land Uses. Specific Plan 03-067 2.7 499 2.4 THE LAND USE MASTER PLAN The Land Use Master Plan for the fifth - amendment to the Coral Mountain Specific Plan reflects the development goal of providing a variety of residential units in a secluded setting of two championship golf courses and other private and semi -private recreational amenities. The Land Use Master Plan graphically delineates the proposed uses located within each planning area of the overall amended Specific Plan. The Master Platt includes complementary architecture in all product types and common area buildings and club facilities as well as a hierarchy of landscape setbacks, pedestrian areas, and connecting circulation systems for pedestrians, bicycles and carts. Development regulations for each planning area are presented in Section 3 - Zoning and Development Regulations. The Master Plan proposes 1400 units in Planning Area I and II dis- tributed within a gross area of approximately 44o acres. These buildings are arranged in config- urations which may include detached units, townhome styled units and/or stacked flats of two, four, and six units each. Additionally, a 12.7 acre neighborhood commercial area is being planned adjacent to the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 58. The balance of the property is planned to be golf and open space use for the benefit of residents and their guests. Planning Area I is characterized by the club facilities, supporting parking circulation elements, and associated open space area_ This facility includes resident and guest serving recreation facil- ities and supporting uses for all residents and guests. Planning Area lI is defined by Villa. Residential dwelling units of one and two stories with asso- ciated pools and open space area. These units are envisioned as attached and detached townhome "Casitas". Planning Area III is defined by various residential dwelling product types of one and two stories with associated pools and spas and associated open space areas. These units are envisioned as attached and detached single family units. Planning Area IV is defined by the golf and open space maintenance facilities. Planning Area V is defined by the Neighborhood Commercial site and its supporting parking and circulation elements. This site is envisioned to be developed as a pedestrian scale neighborhood serving a commercial area. Planning Area VI is defined by the two golf course areas and associated open space, also serving as which is the primary stormwater management and retention zone of the pian area. 2.8 Specific Plan 03-067 500 2,4,1 Land Use By Planning Area A detailed discussion of the proposed land use for the Specific Plan 03-067 and the resulting change in development intensity is presented for each of the six planning areas. The Existing Land Use Table illustrates a tabulation of existing land use, existing zoning, acreage and densities within each planning area. A range of land use categories are provided within the boundary of the Specific Plan 03-067, a range of land use categories are provided for. These include land use for the Golf and open space within the plan, various residential uses, a limited neighborhood serving commercial use and sup- porting ancillary facilities for proposed land uses. The plan area is broken into six distinct planning areas. Development and Zoning criteria responding to the environment within each planning area is presented for each use area. The diagram below delineates the limits of each Planning Area and their relationship to the amended Coral Mountain Pian boundary. 0 Golf Club & Recreation Amenities Residential Use ® Residential Use Golf Maintenance Building - Neighborhood Commercial ® Golf Course Avenue 58 Specific Pian 03-067 Avenue 60 2.9 501 Planning Area I Golf and Tennis Clubhouse Land Use Planning Area 1 is the intended site for the Specific Plan 03-067 Club facilities and is located in the central portion of the easterly half of the master plan area. Primary access to the Club facilities is provided from the main project entry point from Madison Street through a secure entry gate. Planning area 1 is approximately 10 acres and is delineated hereiii. CIubh FIGURE 2 .N" Club Pedestrian and cart access throughout the pian is provided on surface streets and other open space paths to facilitate alternative modes of transportation to and from residential areas and other local offsite areas such as the Commercial element of the plan at the intersectiorn of Madison and Avenue 58. Club Facilities will include golf and tennis locker rooms, meeting rooms, indoor and outdoor, restaurants, lounge areas, kitchen and food preparation and support facilities, as well as five to ten tensiis courts, swimming pool, sauna, and spa amenities. 2.10 Specific Plan 03-067 502 PLANNING AREA I TABLE I PLANNING AREA I — EXISTING LAND USE Existing Land Use Description — Vacant Plat Terrain CiWE RAL PLANA AM USE ZONE ACMES LINM D1IN8111Y LDR RL 10 VACANT SUBTOTALS 10 TABLE 2 PLANNING AREA I — PROPOSED LAND USE Proposed Land Use Description — Club Amenities G GC 10 SUBTOTALS 10 2.11 Fa: Specific Plan 03-057 503 Planning Area II Residential Land use Planning Area II is adjacent to the club facilities site with internal access to residential facilities from the club access road. Residential uses configured as attached and detached single, duplex, triplex and fourplex units are planned for the land area within Planning Area II. Unit count and distribution is described in the accompanying tables and graphics. Within Plarning Area II there are 71 units ---proposed on 16 acres of generally flat terrain. This mix of residential buildings and ancillary recreation arncnities results in a net density of five dwelling, units per acre. Rae( 2.12 Specific Plan 03-067 504 P LAN�TNING AREA II TABLE 3 PLANNING AREA 11— EXISTING LAND USE Existing Land Use Description —Vacant Fiat Terrain GENERAL PLANILAND USE ZONE ACUt ,S UNITS DENSITY LDR Rl, 16 -- SUBTOTALS 1b3 t TABLE 4 PLANNFNG AREA U — PROPOSED LAND USE Residential Use GENERAL PLAWLAND USF ZONE ACRES UMTS FAR LDR RlL ] f1 80 -- SUBTOTALS 2.13 16 80 Specific Plan 03-067 505 Planning Area III Residential Land Use Land use in Planning Area III is distributed generally within the entire project site with internal access to residential units provided from a main project loop road Both attached and detached single family units are plaited for the land area. within Planning Area III. Unit count and distribution is described in accompanying tables and graphics. Avenue 58 Avenue 60 2.1.4 2 Specific Plan 03-067 506 PLANNING AREA III TABLE 5 PLANNING AREA HI - EXISTING LAND USE Existing Land Use Description - Vacant Flat Terrain LDR R[. SUBTOTALS - - TABLE 6 Avenue 58 t •• 3i s .04 ., ., ` :�l:�sY•r�r L ' i ; y IN � � M • 1 Avenue 60 It PLANNING AREA III - PROPOSED LAND USE Proposed Land Use Description - Residential Use LDR RL 424.1 1320 3.1 SUBTOTALS 424.1 1320 3.1 Specific Plan 03-067 2.15 507 Planning Area IV Golf and Open Space Maintenance Facilities Land use in Planning Area IV is located on 3 acres adjacent to the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 60 on the northeast corner of the intersection. Access to the site is provided from Avenue 60 as well as from the internal plan. A Site Development Permit shall be applied for prior to development of the Golf Maintenance Facility. Specific Plan 03-067 508 PLANNING AREA IV TABLE 7 PLANNING AREA N - EXISTING LAND USE Existing Land Use Description - Vacant Flat Terrain LDR RL 3 VACANT SUBTOTALS 3 TABLE 8 PLANNING AREA IV - PROPOSED LAND USE Proposed Land Use Description - Golf Maintenance Facilities G GC 3 0 SUBTOTALS 3 a Specific Plan 03-067 2.17 509 Planning Area V Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Planning Area V is located at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 58, and is planned to be accessed from either arterial roadway adjacent to the two sites. Pedestrian and cart access from the internal area is also planned to facilitate alternative modes of transportation to and from the two sites. Planning Area V has a total of 12.7acres of Neighborhood Commercial development with access from either side of Madison street or the south side of Avenue 58. Acreage of the two adjacent commercial lots are not required to be precisely equal in square footage. Planning Area V encompasses 12.7 acres and is described in accompanying tables and graphics. 2.18 Specific Plan 03-057 510 PLANNING AREA V TABLE 9 PLANNING AREA V - EXISTING LAND USE Existing Land Use Description - Vacant Flat Terrain GLNERA . PL.AN.l AND USE ZONE ACRE'S i Nil's DENSITY LDR RL 10 VACANT SUBTOTALS 10 Avenue 58 Avenue 60 TABLE 10 PLANNING AREA V - PROPOSED LAND USE Proposed Land Use Description - Neighborhood Serving Commercial NC CN 12.7 0 SUBTOTALS 12.7 0 Specific Plan 03-067 x.19 511 Planning Area VI Residential (supporting) Land Use - Golf Course 1 Open Space Planning Area VI is distributed generally throughout the Plan Area and represents the majority of the project site acreage. The two 18 -hole championship golf courses will occupy approximately 477.3 acres, which is approximately 50% of the Specific Plan area. In addition to its function as a recreational facility, the golf course component will also provide a significant visual amenity within the Specific Plan area with the vast majority of residential units having frontage on and/or views of the golf courses. The conceptual layout for the golf courses is shown on the Master Plan Exhibit. Arencr. 58 s 01 AIIANCZ 60 Distribution of this land use is described in accompanying tables and graphics. An Employee parking lot is sited in the northeast corner of the project adjacent to Avenue 58 allowing employ- ee access to the site via internal circulation paths. 2.20 Specific Plan 03-067 512 PLANNING AREA VY TABLE 11 PLANNING AREA V1 - EXISTING LAND USE Existing Land Use Description - Vacant Flat Terrain LDR I f . VACANT SUBTOTALS Avenue 58 Avenue 60 TABLE 12 PLANNING AREA V1 - PROPOSED LAND USE Proposed Land Use Description Golf Course - O ac 468.2 SUBTOTALS 468.2 .0 Specific Plan 03-067 2.21 513 SUM14L4RY TOTALS TABLE 13 EXISTING LAND USE GFNERAL11LA\.L.kND L5E ZONE ACRES UNITS ( ROSS QEIssIT Y LDR RL 934 F SUBTOTALS Avenue 58 Avenue 60 TABLE 14 PROPOSED LAND USE LDR (PA II, PA III) RL 497 1400 2.8 D,U.'s/AC NC (PA V) CN 10 — — G (PA I, PA IV, and PA VI) (YC 427 — — SUBTOTALS 934 2.8 D.U.'s/AC 2.22 Specific Plan 03-067 514 2.5 CIRCULATION PLAN The proposed circulation system for the Specific Plan 03-067 addresses the requirements of the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element by providing a hierarchy of vehicular traffic ways with pedestrian paths within the plan area. The Circulation Plan for the Specific Plan 03-067 utilizes existing circulation element roadways adjacent to and internal to the project area (Madison Street) to provide primary access to the Specific Plan area. These roadways include Avenue 60, Avenue 58, Avenue 62, Monroe Street and Madison Street. The internal circulation system of the amended plan for Coral Mountain will consist of a series of loop roads providing access to the individual residential and recreational components within the Specific Plan area. Cul-de-sac neighborhood streets/drives will utilize the internal loop spines in assuring a "private neighborhood feel". It is anticipated that the internal loop collector system will consist of private streets. The proposed circulation plan for the Specific Plan 03-067 is illustrated below and will consist of improvement of roadways surrounding the Specific Plan area, including 58th Street to the north, 60th Street to the south and Monroe to the east. The Specific Plan area is bisected by Madison Street, which, pursuant to the standards set forth in Specific Plan 218 approved in Riverside County has been improved as a 110' right of way. Similarly, 60th Street has been constructed as a ? street, including full median construction, as a 100' right of way. Except for the tie-in to Madison Street, it is anticipated that both Monroe Street and 58 Street will be constructed in accordance with the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Standards in conjunction with the development of an internal loop road system to serve development within the project. The proposed Circulation Plan for the Specific Plan 03-067 is illustrated below and will consist of improvement of the roadways surrounding the Specific Plan area to General Plan Circulation Element Standards and development of an internal loop road system to serve development within the project. � Neighborhood Drives Exhibit 5 Specific Plan 03-067 Avenue 58 r No no on % Avenue 60 * f�c 1� 0 aft 00a-MUamI 2.23 515 Car[Cart Tunnel Primary Entry 5trondary En Service Entry Exhibit 5 Specific Plan 03-067 Avenue 58 r No no on % Avenue 60 * f�c 1� 0 aft 00a-MUamI 2.23 515 Individual cluster access drives are proposed witli generous setbacks from the arrival boulevard and interior loop road to provide safe ingress and egress from individual residences. Within the Specific Plan area, the circulation system has been designed to accomplish the fol- lowing: • Provide for intemal private roadways that respond to the proposed development corridors while providing a safe route for project ingress and egress; ■ Provide for a private street with access to Madison Street; and to facilitate the internal network of planued private roadways to adequately serve residential areas and other amenities, 2.24 Specific Plan 03-067 516 The following road sections on pages 2.24b and 2.24c shall only apply to the West Tract. fi CMU MASONRY WALL `A4 - 1 .A i P DL--- 101- -Y 13,1 EX MEOVW13 'L LANDSCAPE MEANDERING ESL EX E}L EASEMENT MULTI -USE SHOULDER SHOULDER SIDEWALK TRAM Madison Street LANDSCRPE f0' _ LAN63CRPE 70NE 14'� 1M1' • P.U.E. _�.. ..jryE .. West Tract Entry Road 2-24b Specific Plan 03-067 517 �y 40 ASE 4 UW MiCAPEL 1P 2B VAAI 2' LRNDSCJlPE ZONE RUE ONE-WAY ZONE Divided Residential Access Road RESIDENTLAL AIL PRODUCT or LANDSCAPEZONE • 17 r 12' • P.U.E. • LANDSCAPE ZONE Neighborhood Street A (Typical) 44, Y RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT 1 r �i LANDSCAPE ZONE17 17 RESiDEHTU�i I PRooucT _I P.U.E. LANDSCAPE ZONE Neighborhood Street B (Typical) 2.24c Specific Plan 03-067 518 2.5.1. Offsite Improvements • The offsite public streets surrounding the project are currently developed in accordance with La Quinta City Engineering and Public Works Department standards and will be constructed incrementally in accordance with the applicable General Pian designations. City-wide mass transit systems and stops are accessible along pehmeter public thorough fares. Perimeter landscape improvements shall be implemented along the project frontage. • The offsite trails system is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan multipurpose and Bridal Trails plan to allow safe access to the trail bead and staging area currently operational at the westerly terminus of Avenue 58 at Labe CahAla. 2.5.2 Onsite Improvements The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential circulation impacts associated with the proposed project and shall be implemented in a phased manner in conjunction with adjacent planning area(s) requiring roadway improvements. Bus stops will be provided on Avenue 58 in the vicinity of the project service entry and along Avenue 60 in the vicinity of the Maintenance Building employee entry. • All internal divided roads will have a minimum pavement width of 20 feet (divided roads) per lane to accommodate minimum design criteria for fire equipment access. All other roads shall have a minimum pavement of. 28 feet (internal streets and drives). • Each subdivision shall comply with the on-site and off-site street improvement recommendations and mitigation measures as regWred by the City Engineer. • All sections shall be approved by the City of La Quinta Transportation Department. • All access points shall conform to appropriate street classification per City standards for access spacing. • Commercial uses shall be per the General Plan. Neighborhood commercial uses must be located along secondary or greater highways, or near intersections with secondary highways. • The offsite trails system is consistent with the La Quints General Plan multipurpose and Bridal Trails plan to allow safe access to the trail head and staging area currently operational at the westerly terminus of Avenue 58 at Lake Cahuilla. Specific Plan 03-067 2.25 519 Any landscaping within public road rights-of-way will require approval by the Corsa wxity Development Department and assurance of continuing maintenance through the establishment of a landscape maintenance district or similar mechanism as approved by the City. A No textured pavement accents will be allowed within City aright -of -ways. Image Corridor Standards for tete Specific Plan Area Development adjacent to the City of La Quinta General Planned Irnage Corridors located cn Monroe Street, Avenue 60, Madison Street and Avenue 58 shall be restricted to a height ]imitation of 22' from pad grade within a setback distance of 150' froin the Right -of -Way. Rear and side yard setbacks for lots adjacent to the Image Corridors shall be expanded to a minimum of 25' per La Quinta Municipal Zoning Code Section 9.50.020. 2.26 Specific Plan 03-467 520 2.6 MASTER PLAN SUPPORTING ELEMENTS Open Space, Recreation, and Infrastructure Plans and Concepts Within the Specific Plan 03-067, the Open Space, Recreation and Infrastructure Plan identifies and establishes the plan policy relative to the management of open space and recreation ameni- ties within the plan area boundary as well as delineates infrastructure supporting the plan area. The purpose of this plan is to establish development policies and a philosophy which identifies resources and facility sites in the plan area, which shall be managed to prevent waste, destruction, or abuse of natural or man made amenities or resources. PROJECT SETTING The 934 acre project area is within the City of La Quinta, a 51 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. The City, which was incorporated in 1982, is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and Federal and County lands to the south. The fifth amendment to the Specific Plan project site is generally defined by Avenue 58 along the Northerly boundary, Monroe Street to the East, Avenue 60 to the South, and to the West vacant land and portions of the flood control dike. 2.6.1 Open Space and Recreation The Specific Plan 03-067 Master plan utilizes open space and recreation as a fundamental concept for the development. Extensive recreational amenities have been incorporated into the design of the project to serve future residents. The primary recreational component of the development will be the two 18 -hole championship golf courses. In addition to its function as a recreational facili- ty, the golf course component will also provide a visual amenity within the Specific Plan area with a significant number of residential units having frontage on and/or views of the golf courses. Individual developments within the Specific Plan area may have additional recreational amenities including termis and swimming facilities to augment the recreation base of the community. The conceptual layout for the golf courses and private club facilities are illustrated on the master Plan graphic. Specific Plan 03-467 2.27 521 2.6.2 Infrastructure and Utilities PIan The infrastructure system planned to serve the Specific Plan 03-067 project described below will be designed to provide a coordinated system of infrastructure and public services to adequately serve the plan area at full buildout. Standards for infrastructure and public services relative to land use intensity envisioned for the plan area will be served by the following utilities; • Sewer - Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Water - Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Electricity - Imperial Irrigation District (fiD) • Gas - Southern California Gas Company 2.6.3 Water and Sewer Plan The intent of the Specific Plaza 03-067 is to utilize existing water and sewer facilities where pos- sible, and to provide additional or upgraded facilities as necessary. Water and sewer service for the Specific Plan area is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The CVWD provides dozmstic water from wells. Agricultural water used for irrigation is a surface water source. An underground irrigation distribution system providing water to the valley, traverses the western portion of the Specific Plan 03-067 property from the northwest to the southwest. The Specific Plan 03-067 will eonforrn to the requirements of the CVWD's current and future pro- grams and requirements pertaining to water management and conservation. Sewer Service The Specific Plan area would be served by a series of standard sewer lines and laterals linking to existing 18" force mains located in Avenue 60 and Madison Street. Purnping facilities would be located as necessary within the Specific Plan area to transport sewage to the existing trunk tines. The CVWD hes indicated its ability to provide sewer service to the Specific Plan. area. Domestic Water Service Domestic water would be distributed to individual residential units by standard water lines to be located within road rights-of-way. New water lines would meed to be installed in conjunction with road improvements to serve the proposed Specific Pian 03-067 development. The developer will be required to construct domestic water lines, transmission mains and reservoir sites to accom- modate the water demands for this project. CVWD will require a well site for each 70 acres of developed land. The location of such well sites will be subject to CVWD approval. 2128 Specific Plan 03-067 522 Irrigation Water The sources for irrigation water for the golf courses and other landscape features within the Specific Plan area will be provided by reclaimed or canal water. These waters will be stored in lakes and ponds located throughout the golf courses. The existing underground irrigation distri- bution system traversing the Specific Plan area is not anticipated to be disturbed in conjunction with Specific Plan implementation. The golf courses have been routed over this irrigation line to ensure that no residential units would be constructed on top of the underground line. Grading of the golf course will be. coordinated with CV -WD in relation to the alignment of the existing or relocated lines. CVWD reserves the right to review and approve any activity occurring within any existing irrigation right-of-way within the Specific flan area- 2.6.4 rea 2.6.4 Electricity All overhead public utility transmission lines for cable television, electricity and telephone are routed or currently scheduled for installation in the vicinity of the perimeter of the Specific Plan site. The developer will be required by IID to install to District standards. All permanent power and telecommunications distribution lines internal to the project, will be required to install those facilities underground per the District guidelines where possible. 2.6.5 Natural Gas All natural gas transmission. Facilities are routed or currently scheduled for installation in the vicinity of the perimeter of the Specific Plan site. The developer will be required by Southern California Gas Company (the Gas Company) to install to the Gas Company standards. All per- manent distribution lines internal to the project will be installed per the District guidelines. 2.6.6 Telephone Land-based telephone services are provided by General Telephone Company in the project area and will extend lines to the site as needed. Local cellular service is provided for that area. 2.6.7 Refuse Collection Refuse collection within the City lirvits is provided by an entity franchised by the City of La Quints and occurs in accordance with a schedule established by the franchisee and the City, It is envisioned that unit areas of the plan will be served by extension of the contract refuse collection services currently in place with the City. Prior to regularly scheduled pickup and removal, refuse will be contained in a maintained surface birr environment to ensure recycling of waste materials as appropriate and required . Specific Plan 03-067 2.29 523 2.6.8 School Service School service in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area is provided by the Coachella valley Unified School District (CVUSD). It is not anticipated that significant numbers of students will be generated by the Specific Plan due to the anticipated family characteristics of potential pur- chasers of residential units. The applicant will contribute school fees in accordance with the requirements of the CVUSD. 2,6.9 Lav Enforcement In general, police protection for the Specific Plan area will be provided by the County of Riverside Sheriffs Department. Police protection provided'by the Sheriffs Department will be augmented by security facilities to be incorporated into the Specific flan. In general, it is antici- pated that the entire Specific Plan area will be a gate -guarded community with its own private security force. Primary and secondary entrances to these residential development areas will be protected by either a guard -gated entry or by card -gated entry. The presence of such security wiU reduce the dependence of the development on complete prot�ctlon by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department and other City of La Quinta security personnel. In addition, it is anticipated that many of the residences within the Specific Plan area will have their own individual private security systems. This pattern has been typical of other similar developments by the developer. 2.6.10 Fire Protection Fire protection within the specific plan area will be provided by the Riverside County Fire Department. In conjunction with their PGA West development, the developer constructed a new fire station on the FGA West property at Madison Street and Avenue 54 (the "PGA Station"). It is anticipated that fire protection service to the specific plan area will be provided from the PGA Station. 542 acres of the 987 acre plan area was originally entitled for 2,198 developable units. Since originally approved, development of both the PGA West development and the Coral Mountain specific plan areas have experienced a significant reduction in overall project densities. As a result, the PGA Station should be more than sufficient to service the requirements of this plan area. 2.6.11 Library Facilities The City is served by a public library which is administered by the Riverside County Library System located within 6 miles of the project boundary. 2.30 Specific Plan. 03-067 524 2.7 ANDALUSIA (EAST TRACT This section provides design guidelines and standards that apply to the Coral Mountain Specific Plan area east of Madison Street. The general guidelines presented herein are an extension of Coral Mountian Specific Plan Amendment I Design Guidelines and in many cases paraphrase the prior approval document where applicable. Many of the guidelines and standards, though applicable throughout the project, only apply in cer- tain situations or in conjunction with certain uses and/or building types. Those guidelines that have no specific call -out or geographic reference point can be assumed to apply uniformly throughout the project site. It should be noted that these design guidelines and standards do not replace or reduce applicable subdivision requirements of the City of La Quinta and/or as modi- fied by the adopted Coral Mountain Specific Plan Amendment I. The following major topic areas are incorporated in this section: The Overall Community Themes, Commercial and Ancillary Buildings and Sites, Club Facilities, Residential Buildings, and Grading Guidelines and Standards. Specific Plan 03-067 Community Theme The Specific Plan 03-067 Master Plan will rely on the Rancho La Quinta project as a baseline for architectural and landscape architectural standards. These design guidelines will assist the devel- oper of the Specific Plan 03-067 project to execute a built environment that incorporates the fol- lowing main concepts: • Develop a community that is visually attractive and captures the essence of the surroundings. • Incorporate a variety of open space and recreational uses (active and passive). • Design a planned community that complements existing development in the surrounding area and is compatible with the surrounding environment. • Establish densities that are consistent with development patterns of surrounding areas_ • Recognize the unique nature of Coral Mountain as a community within a community that meets the living and recreational needs of future residents of the City of La Quinta. • Develop high quality golf courses to create a strong community identity and long-term value. The design guidelines contained in this subsection are intended to establish a consistent design approach among site planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architectural components while allowing flexibility in design over the build -out of the community. Specific Plan 03-067 2.31 525 The design guidelines for Specific Plan 03-067 are intended to: • Assist in implementing the design intent of the Specific Plan by establishing project design compatibility among different residential densities and land uses; • Provide a consistent approach to site planning and the design of buildings, streets, signage, walls and fences, lighting, landscaping, and other design elements that will endure for the life of the community. The guidelines provided herein suggest themes compatible with Spanish Colonial "character" but are not intended to limit expressions of varying architectural styles. The design guidelines pre- sented herein establish the framework to achieve harmony and compatibility between residential neighborhoods while stili providing flexibility that allows for a variety of architectural expression and interpretation. Examples of the design theme are illustrated throughout #his document, These examples are meant to convey general design concepts and are not intended to limit the range of expression among individual builders and their professional design teams. The guidelines are provided for the benefit of merchant builders, their planners/ designers, and City of La Quinta staff and decision-making bodies in the review of future Specific Plan 03-067 site development proposals. As such, the design guidelines identify elements for all residential and other land use proposals within the Specific Plan 03-467 area. These guidelines may be incorporated into subsequent site development permits, conditional use permits, and subdivision maps submitted to the City for approval unless it is demonstrated that certain guidelines are not applicable, appropriate, or feasible under site -speck circumstances. ?.32 Specific Pian 03-067 526 2.7.1 The SpecMe Plan 03-067 Community Image The extensive open spar..- elemew provided ay the golf Wurses together wig the proposed Specific Plan 03-067 landscape perimeter provides an image of privacy and lushness for the commut€ity. The master landscape plan makes smwt€sres on the interior of the project unabtru- sive and at the same time, flames the views from fhese structures to surrounding greenbelts, the golf course and moasnWn vistrm. The use of Date Palm, Citrus, and ether desert tree species pro - gide the main laridscape framework for Specific Plan 03-067. A full list of recomrsended plant material is provided in the Rtcotcmended PlanE NUterial. Palette i., Section 2.3. 2.7.2 Commercial A.rchiteaumi and Site Gaidelines The Commercial architectural theme for Specific Plan 03-067 may include Spanisk Tuscan, Andalusion and other oxnpatible "desert architecture" styles. Color in Cormmerchd Architecinre The existing Coral Mountain architectsual theme is based on whitewashed stucco over adobe bricks using an earth tone color palette. This color motif is completed with a simplistic color schemes, a variety of roof tones and textures, and complementary window moldings and amhj- tectiaral detailing. The predominant color of all sees shall be limited to the specu= of white, cream, tats, sand, light brown, mauve and similar earth tonnes. Colors outside of this spectrum shall be, I mited to single aoceni elements. In order to achieve the variety of arclutec#mfl expression envisioned for the residential cOmPmeffts Of the Specific flan. 03-067 pmject, a variety of materials and colors shall be used to create a nch tapestry of design elements. Specific Plan 03-057 2.33 527 • A range of muted color tones shall be used throughout the development within Specific Plan 03-067. Materials in Commercial Architecture Roof materials shall include clay barrel tile, flat concrete tile, and concrete shakes. The color of roofs shall provide a range of deep earth tones, The color of roof materials shall be varied to reflect the existing surrounding architectural theme. All roofing material shall be fire retardant. • The predominant exterior building material shall be smooth finish stucco in keeping with the Specific flan. 03-067 arcaectural vernacular. �t •/ 1 S• ,, ' Y ' 11:7ft� Wood, tila and wrought iron shall be appropriately incorporated as accent materials and he consistant with the architectural style. rh i�`jI w I� 1��=1i.�i4-►.'iR.'.q-�� � i i rI' 2.34 Specific Plan 03067 528 Commercial Area Site Planning Appropriate site planning guidelines as discussed below shall be used to ensure functional and aesthetic development within Specific Plan 03-067's Neighborhood Commercial center. The guidelines are intended to be flexible and not all guidelines are applicable in all situations. Reasonable application of guidelines in order to achieve a high quality consistency in design theme within the adjacent architectural context will be necessary. NS �'7t'iJfy��+ '�.� ---- — .tea-ks`,✓. � f'•X't���r�arrr-.�•�'ir ��s+�:�'GC:• •�:.�� . -nvr . �rt,..•!� �:arf1R-a.-YX.I-.[-f v�yf +"s71X1f:1•ih.C�l-^r �Ff�•�-,'+Y?AY �SCf7'•..X7S�=�J..M••w}b�+L �; ,• .- .. w.�. ��~"r4� �.1� -til ._._.. _ ,_•_ 1, � .. -•. L 1 -�Pi .. `'.vim •=:;:. '. F . . , • Site planning parameters shall conform to the criteria set fourth. ,Flexibility in interpretation is to be implemented in site design to achieve individual expression. Building Massing and kale in Commercial Architecture The character of the commercial development areas shall reflect a neighborhood scale so that building massing does not overwhelm the street scene. The site shall be, wherever possible, low- rise in nature to create a pleasant pedestrian scale environment. Specific Plan 03-067 2.35 529 Building; wall planes, particolarly on the front elevation, shall be offset to create interest along the street, to provide a desirable pedestrian scale, and avoid visual monotony. • Single -story plate lines are encouraged on the front elevation. Second -story wall planes shall be offset to effectively break up the building mass and reduce the perceived building scale as viewed from the street. Single-story plate lines with second -story wall setbacks are encouraged on side and rear elevations. • Side elevations shall provide the same leve] of articulation and detail as the front elevations • Articulated roofscapes shall be created through the use of a variety of roof foims. • Repetitious gable ends along front and rear elevations shall be minimized. 2.36 Specific PIan D3-467 530 2.7.3 The Specific Plan 43-067 Golf and Countiy Club Facilities A Clubhouse complex at the center of the Specific flan 03-067 master pian will function as the social center and focal point of the community. This complex is comprised of. • A clubhouse providing dining, loutige and social activity facilities club, and sport facility pro shops, locker rooms, lounges and golf cart storage for its championship golf courses and supporting circulation facilities for operations of those facilities. Circulation facilities for golf and clubhouse operations A Swim and Tennis Club featwing a pro shop, locker rooms and a restaurant/lounge area is envisioned for Specific Plan 03-067. The Swim and Tends Club is sited within a garden setting overlooking the courts, pools, and spas. • A Spa of approximately 6,000 Sp' containing several treatment rooms, a steam zoom, a salon, and retail is envisioned for Specific Plan 03-067. A t _ A, `�- _ .. 'r!r/ � syr � �� 4� �• ." ., Club Facility Site Planning Guidelines The site design and planning of the Specific flan 03-067 club facility areas such as the Golf and Tennis Club will incorporate elements that respond to the desert crate in the same mariner as the residential components of the plan. Elements include generous patios, spacious courtyards, arcades, plazas, and paseos. Other plawting guidelines for commercial, golf and country club facilities are listed below. Specific Plan 03-067 2.37 531 CI t 71< Club Main buildings shall be, wherever possible, sited in landmark locations and be easily accessible and convenient. Service areas shall be, wherever possible, sited in low -visibility areas and effectively Screened by utilizing building elements and/or landscaping. • Pedestrian access routes between adjacent uses shall be, wherever possible, incorporated into the site design. Pedestrian spaces shall be, wherever possible, provided by creating plazas, courtyards, and promenades that link use areas. Parking shall be, wherever possible, oriented to permit pedestrian flow to club facilities. Pedestrian courts are encouraged, especially to accent open area access points or primary vehicular entries and drop-offs. ' .e 2.36 The use of landscape areas and green space to separate rustornor traffic from commercial and service traffic is encouraged. Shared use of service areas, parking, access, etc., shall be integrated into the design wherever possible. Specific Plan 03-057 532 • hoof equipment shall be architecturally screened where feasible. Pedestrian access to adjacent uses shall be provided where feasible . Club Facility Design Criteria Wall Planes, Windows, and Doors • The use of wood frame windows scaled to the interior space is encouraged Frames shall be, wherever possible, painted or appropriately colored to match the club facility. The use of wood trim is encouraged on all elevations visible from a private or quasi -public spaces. Trim shall be compatible with the bUding's architecture and color. The style of windows small be compatible with the architectural style of the building. The use of many different window styles and or shapeson one building plane shall be avoided. The size and proportion of panes shall be in scale to the overall wall plane. Accent windows that have a different or atiicuIa.ted shape or utilize multi -panes shall be used to create interest on building elevations as long as they are consistent with the style of the building. Entries • The club entry shall be a focal point of the building's front elevation through the appropriate use of massing, building of'f'sets, varied roof elements, columns, porticos, recesses or projections, accent windows or other architectural features. I Specific flan 03-067 2.39 533 Porches, Balconies, and Raifings • Porches shall be incorporated to the greatest extent possible. • Porches and balconies fimetion as an extension of interior spaces to provide visual interest, shadow, texture and shade. • Second story balconies are encouraged to provide visual interest. • Porches and balconies shall be designed as an integral component of the building's architecture and style, and shall not appear as a poorly conceived add-on element. • The design of porch and balcony railiugs shall complement the building's architec- ture rchite -ture and style. Columns • Columns used as a structural or aesthetic design element shall convey a solid And durable image, and shall be consistent with the architectural style of the club facility building. 2.40 Specific Plan 03-067 534 • Columns may be used as free-standing form, or as supports for roofs and balconies. Chimneys Chimneys, particularly chimney caps, shall be simple in design, so as not to distract from the building. The design of chimneys shall be compatible with the architectural style of the building. Exposed metal flues are not permitted. Exterior Stairs • Exterior stairways shall be simple bold elements which complement the architectural massing and form of the building. ; F? r.. f Archways a, • The use of archways shall be compatible with the architectural style of the building, and designed as a complementary component of the building or adjacent courtyard. Specific Plan 03.067 2.51 535 ar.M -o e 77 lie ZZ. t f Yr so • When used, archways shall define or onframe space, such as entries, porticos, patios, courtyards, and parking elements. WaM and Fences • Walls and fences which are visible from streets, open space, or other private or quasi -public areas, shall be compatible in material, color, and design with adjacent and/or existing architectural elements. Building Details • All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by walls or fences that are compatible with the building architecture, or by adequately sized plant material. • All utility meters are to be integrated into the architecture and screened from view. • The materials, colors, and forms of garage structures shall be consistent with the architectural style of the club facility neighborhood in which they are located. • Building designs that incorporate trellises and other shade structures are encouraged. • Accessory structures shall be designed to be consistent with the architecture of the adjacent club facility buildings. 2.42 Specific Plan 03-067 536 Club Facility Site Planning Criteria Club facility areas are to maintain a pedestrian friendly environment through the use of appropriately proportioned architectural and landscape elements. Street furnishings that add to the festive and pedestrian atmosphere surrounding the club shall be encouraged. Clubhoulpe •� 4 `• •� k 41 % Tennis Club e •..91. 1 i • Group functions and uses are encouraged at plaza spaces and recreation amenities to promote a lively pedestrian environment. • Arcades provide a pedestrian scale to buildings and pleasant shade cover, particularly when used on south and west facades. • Special areas such as paseos, plazas, and courtyards shall be created to further enhance the pedestrian environment. • Lighting fixtures shall be small in scale and consistent with the character and use of exterior areas. • Appropriately spaced benches and seating areas are to be provided for pedestrian comfort. • Flags or banners shall be made of durable cloth material and flown from vertical free- standing poles or incorporated into the design of street lighting and building architecture through the use of cantilevered poles. Club Facility Parking Parking (on -street and off-street) shall be designed to minimize the visual impact of parking Areas. 2.43 Specific Plan 03-067 537 Off-street surface parking shall be screened from view through the use of plant material or low walls that are consistent with the architectural style. .o CZubhoil e Tennis Club Landscape treatments shall be used at surface parking areas to provide shade and mirni- mize the visibility of parking areas. • Parking areas shall provide clearly defined pedestrian circulation, • Trash enclosures, loading docks, rubbish bins, transformers, satellite antennas, processing equipment, and any other unsightly apparatuses must be screened from view through the use of landscape or architectural elements that are compatible with the building architec- ture in material, color and design. Club Facility Massing and Scale Offset wall planes shall be used as an integral part of the building design to provide visual artic- ulation. • Building offsets shall be used to indicate building entries and pedestrian nodes. • Offset or angled building corners shall be used to provide subtle articulation. The Clubhouse building massing shall consist of a mix of building heights along with the use of focal vertical elements. 2.44 Projections, overhangs and recesses shall be used to provide shadow, articulation, and scale to building elevations. Specific Plan 03-067 538 r: The extensive use of bright vibrant colors is discouraged except on limited accent and/or focal elements, The calor of roofs should provide a range of tones compatible with regional Spanish traditions. All roof7ng material shall be fire retardant, 2.7.4 Residential Site planning Guidelines The climate in La Quinta is characterized by sunny and hot weather in the summer and relatively mild winters that feature excellent air clarity. The design of residences shall incorporate elements which respond to these conditions, such as patios, courtyards, arcades, plazas, and passageways. In addition, extended roof overhangs shall be used to provide shade. Other residential site consid- erations include the following: The placement of structures should consider prevalent environmental conditions including sun orientation, prevailing winds and desired views. • Orientation of residential development edges should mwdrnize view potential and access to natural open areas and recreation areas. Open space "fingers" should extend into resi- dential areas where possible. • Varying house configurations on corner lots is encouraged to promote variety in the street scene and preserve sightlines of drivers at intersections. • A combination of side -entering and front -entering garages and varied driveway locations are encouraged to breakup repetitive curb cuts and yard patterns. • Cu] -de -sacs are encouraged to improve neighborhood safety and character. 2.416 Specific Plan 03-067 540 • Guest parking shall be, wherever possible, located to provide easy access to units. • Four-way intersections within individual neighborhoods are discouraged. • Neighborhoods bordering open areas shall be, wherever possible, sited to maximize views of the Specific Plan 03-067 course amenities, while discouraging through access. • Recreation areas/greenbelt features shall be, wherever possible, visible upon entry to neighborhoods to enhance neighborhood value. • Individual multi -family buildings shalt be, wherever possible, separated sufficiently to provide a green space image and accor=odate walks and other circulation elements. A. Residential A.Irchitecnral Design Criteria Wall Planes, Windows, and Doors • The use of desert heat withstanding windows is encouraged, if aluminum or vinyl frame windows are used, the frames must be painted or appropriately colored to complement the building and/or trim material. Specific Plan 03-067 2.47 541 The use of rmultipane windows is encouraged for front elevations which are visible from other private or quasi -public spaces. Trim may be painted to complement the building architecture and color. The style of windows shall be compatible with the architectural style of the building. The use of many different styles of windows on one building plane shall be avoided. The size and proportion of panes shall correspond to the overall proportioning of the elevation. Accent windows that have a different or articulated shape or utilize multi -panes shall be used as an accent element to create interest on building elevations. Windows are to be consistent with the regional Spanish style. Entries • The entry of residential dwelling units shall be articulated as a focal point of the building's front elevation through the appropriate use of roof elements, columns, porticos, recesses or projections, windows or other architectural features. • Sufficient stacking distances at project entries shall be, wherever possible, provided. Porches, Balconies, and Railings • Front porches shall be designed, where feasible, as an integral part of buldings to provide visual interest, as well as to promote social interaction among community residents by providing outdoor living spaces oriented to the front of the dwelling unit, • Incorporate porches and balconies to function as extensions of interior spaces, to provide shaded outdoor living spaces. 2.48 Specific Flan 03-067 542 • Porches and balconies shall be designed as an integral component of the building and not as a poorly conceived add-on element. • The design of porch and balcony railings shall complement the building's architecture and style. • Second story balconies are encouraged to provide visual interest. Columns • Columns used as a structural or aesthetic design element shall convey a solid and durable image, and shall be consistent with the architectural style of the building. • Colwnns may be used as a free-standing form, or as support for roofs and balconies. Chimneys • Chimneys, particularly chimney caps, shall be simple in design, so as not to distract from the building. • The design of chimneys shall be compatible with the architectural style of the building. Exposed metal flues are not permitted. Specific Plan 03-067 2.49 543 ;tib• ,'r����'_,�'��s '1h • Porches and balconies shall be designed as an integral component of the building and not as a poorly conceived add-on element. • The design of porch and balcony railings shall complement the building's architecture and style. • Second story balconies are encouraged to provide visual interest. Columns • Columns used as a structural or aesthetic design element shall convey a solid and durable image, and shall be consistent with the architectural style of the building. • Colwnns may be used as a free-standing form, or as support for roofs and balconies. Chimneys • Chimneys, particularly chimney caps, shall be simple in design, so as not to distract from the building. • The design of chimneys shall be compatible with the architectural style of the building. Exposed metal flues are not permitted. Specific Plan 03-067 2.49 543 Garage DIDOrs Garai dnoTs shall be compatible with the architDo ral style of Ow residmce and incorporate design details. that n inutim tho impact of large flat surfaces ids the 5tr t. It is encouraged that twD single doers shall be t6lized for some two -car games, while thrcx-rr garages may incorWrate, a dole door Mn'th s smSle door or three single doves. Where three -car Sarages are pip , at lust cmc garage ontmnce shall be o et or dctachrA from the eiauainir t entnm=. Exterior Stai m - Exterior stairways shall be simplc bold elements which mrnpiement thu architochffal masmng and form -of the rmj&w=. Archways The use of arcbways must bc: compatible with the arcNtoaw`al style of the btu!ding, and shall be de ignr�d as an comglimentaty the, building or adjacent courtyard, When used, ai&%ays shall define outdoorspam, such as entries, portico, patic,s, xW -couMwda. NValls and Fetes • Ws Md fetes which are visible ftm gCteets, Open spaoc, or other private 4t gwsi-public ams, shall be coEnpakble in material color, and dcsip with adjacent architectural elements. �I�Rf G►{ ��� ���if'�a's i'1F�rYrr �aagra �rxrr� ��� �4�f� ��rarr far F rc�Siti It PONY WALL WIVELCOWn"A wROuF#7' fk&x FF-rJGfeirG I5P41 Specific plan OM67 544 PONY WALL WIVELCOWn"A wROuF#7' fk&x FF-rJGfeirG I5P41 Specific plan OM67 544 16"$ Pil,cX`rr W11Cap iP D.C. W 4H a Slee cee Fini rl, —f ,!:NU Wall W1Rv,1hdec4 More^r Cap,. W4rfr Si!"e4o Finis! 501-10 LOW WALL Building Details • All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by walls or fences compatible with the building architecture, or by plant material adequate in size to provide proper screening. • The materials, colors, and forms of carport structures shall be consistent with the architectural style of the neighborhoods in which they are located. • Accessory structures shall be consistent with the architectural style of the adjacent buildings. • All flashing, sheet metal, and vents shall be, wherever possible, painted or screened from view in a manner which is compatible with the building architecture. Common Space Elements • All residential areas shall have fully enclosed trash enclosures, which are compatible in material, color and design with the building architecture. Support facilities such as recreation buildings, permanent leasing offices, mail stations, etc., shall be designed in the same architectural style, and to the same level of detail and articulation, as the main buildings they support. B. Residential Site Planning Criteria. Single -Family Detached The following concept shall be incorporated into the design of single-family detached neighbor- hoods: - The, street layout within residential rteighborhoods shall provide view corridors to the pedestrian pathways, open space, and landscape elements, thereby unifying pedestrian circulation and site landmarks, where feasible. • The use of parkways or greenbelt gardens connecting the residential courts is encouraged in the design of neighborhood streetscapes. Specific Plan 03-067 2.51 545 I hsroi L.c++dscRpe P ,area • Residential dwelling units shall be sited to maximize view opportunities of the mountains in the La Quinta. region where feasible. • Where two-story units are located adj acerxt to one another, the side second story of at least one unit shall be stepped back, where feasible, to create a single -story plate line along the common side yard. • The location of dwelling units may include a random mix of front entry and side entry garages, along with a motor court concept, where feasible, to provide variety to the street scene. Singie4akmily Attached The general site planning concepts established for the single,-fumily detached neighborhoods also apply to the single-family attached neighborhoods. In addition the following concept shall be incorporated into the design of single-family attached neighborhoods: • Neighborhood entry roadways shall focus on an amenity or a community open space feature or landmark, where feasible. • The street layout within residential neighborhoods shall provide view corridors to the open space and other special community features and landmarks, where feasible. In addition, the view corridors should also provide physical access to these community features, where feasible. The design of streets shall be pedestrian oriented. The use of parkways is encouraged in the design of neighborhood streetscapes, where feasible. IF, WAH seek"It—Ir Ahft"at cafrr-----------� 2.52 Pro�a[L sr9h,ye ll Perrmsr rp- r4.rid Str[ri 'r•reer i P , WZ S&- Lb"& Specific Plan 03067 546 fr in.l�ir SFr//A • �. WAU w/petdkarrt : • ! Pei-h.rtRr 'r4,FMr 11.�� �llnderrfary 7d.u,irn1 , WZ S&- Lb"& Specific Plan 03067 546 2.7.5 Grading Design Standards and Guidelines Tho following Guidelines are provided to give general direction to grading design. The primary focus of these Guidelines is to minimize the visual impact of grading by shaping the landform to reflect a more natural topography. The existing relatively flat character of theSpecific Plan 03-067 site will require a carefully thoughtout grading design to signi5cantly alter the natural Jandform to create drama and visual excitement These Guidelines are intended to outline approaches to landform alterations which accomplish this drama and yet sensitively blend graded areas with the adjacent topographic conditions. Since the majority of Coral Mountain property is generally without significant contour or grade, it is anticipated that landform alteration associated with the development will be substantial in order to achieve the development goal of the creation of unique and dramatic landform within, the golf course, residential, and open space Area of the plan. Grading Concepts and Standards Landform alteration proposed as a part of construction within the project site boundary is subject to review and approval by the developer as part of the plan review procedures. Such review shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: Manufactured slopes should be varied in cross-section and along the slope length that utilize var- ied gradients. Manufactured landforms at development edges shall be recontoured to a transition to their exist- ing grade. The toe and crest of any manufactured slope in excess of ten feet (10') in height shall be rounded with vertical curves to to create natural, nonabrupt grade changes, All graded slopes shall be revegetated and irrigated in accordance with the landscape architectural and resource management standards outlined in these Guidelines, and as approved by the developer. Where residential access across drainage courses occurs it shall be accomplished by a bridge or aesthetically enhanced culvert. Where these improvements occur, natural materials may be used for slope bank protection. Berms, channels, swales, etc., shall be graded in such a way as to be an integral part of the grad- ed and/or paved surface, and shall be designed with smooth vertical transitions between changes in slope. Grading and Drainage Plans must be prepared under the direction of a licensed Civil Engineer, Specifie Plan 03-067 2.53 547 At the time of submittal of the Specific Plan 03-067, it is anticipated that the Specific Plan area encompassed in the Specific Plan 03-067 will be developed in five, two-year phases beginning in 2003 and continuing until 2013 as illustrated on the Development Phasing Plan herein. The types of development and the residential product offering occurring within each of the devel- opment phases may vary depending upon market conditions. Public facilities will, however, be provided concurrently with development requiring facilities and infrastructure for support. Avenue 58 WEST HALF Avenue 60 EAST HALF The Specific Plan is expected to be developed in five two-year phases beginning with: Phase I in the southeast half of the Specific Plan area with the construction of the first of two golf courses; Phase H will entail development of various residential tracts adjacent to the golf element of Phase I; Phase III, will entail development of residential products adjacent to the clubhouse and recreation amenities element of the master plan and the commercial center on the North East corner of Madison & Avenue 59. Phase 1V will consist of the construction of the second golf course and associated supporting facilities; Phase V will entail development of various residential tracts adjacent to the golf element of Phase N and the commercial center on the North West corner of Madison and Avenue 58. Public facilities and improvements will be provided and phased in accordance with the require- ments of the City of La Quinta and the County of Riverside when applicable. Transportation, drainage, water and sewer improvements will be provided as described in this Specific Plan. 2.54 Specific Plan 03-067 548 2.7.7 Andalusia (East Tract) Plant Material Palette The thecae of the landscape orohitecture at the Specific Plan 43-467 project is to cvw;� a lush desert oharactu of' -visual variety and texture] interest while, complying with water conserving teohnioe,s based oa pleurt selection and technico irrigation system design. Contiswkt with this goal, use of drought tolemnt plant material is a primary wnsi&ration in the fevd.opment of the plant paiette to farther aid in the aonaerva6on of water while promoting this lush de sat theme in the prevailing landscape image. To provide ggidaucf. to the builders and designefs of future projects wk in tate Spccific Platt 03- 067 projeot the plant matuial palette suggested gives giid&moe to builders and dmelopers with- in the project Species in addition to those Iisted are to be considered in order to provide diver- sity; hovrever, the plant material in the list provided are relatively sucoessM in the unique soil and climactic conditions of project site. PLANT PALE, TTJ. lweli SHRUBS: Acncia salichla Weeping Wattlr, Acacia 59igna Blue LeeWaWe Apia small; Dosart Sweet Acacia A+ckcia atcaophylla ShDartdng Acacia Arachyakitoe populneus Bottlo Ree Comidium fkcid am Blue Palo Verde Cercidium hybrid D asert museum Cercidium praecox sonosan pejo Verde Chamempskumitis Mad_ Fim Palm cwiopsiR Tinamp Desert Willow Citrus Speckm citrus Lupranus samparvhvi)9 itsliamcypres5 Fraxlnus Uiralcj `bUjCtAo BOBuiy I UArmgrcen As h Gti;eru p"fiora Angiral inn Rrllow Lagarstraemia Sodim Crape Tiny rtle Lysi tarns nii=phylla var thornbard feather Rush Oloa europaea Olive alneya'rawta Dasa t Ironwood parinWOn.ia wuleeta mexima Palo Verde Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm Pittus etderica Afghan Pirie Pinus Wepeesis Aleppo rine Frmopis Chilensis Chilean Mesquite Rhus Ian= 4f can 5uamaz Sewflus Terablrall folius Brazil ion Pepper Ree Theve� a pemviana Yellow oletrder iJimus par ACOHa Elm wwfiingkknia filifera California Pao Palm Waahingtanm r6us?a Mexican Fact Palm Caemhirda pulcharr rna RedSi rd of Paradise Carissa gvandiflora Natal Plum Casai a ttemophilla Desert Cassia Dietes vaget9 Fortnight Uly Specific Plan 03067 2.55 549 Dodowwa vzscosa CTf= Hnpaeed .Bosh H,emerccallis hybrid DayMy Hettrovielm arbutifaha Tayan Hibt us apecles Hibiseus Tua lcia califomiea Cllupatasa LeLlcophylium $ptcie9 Texas Rater Myrnss cammuuss `Compacta' Carnpact Myrtle N"dl na dometstica Heavenly Bamboo Phobnia fraacri Pholirtia Phormium tenax NCR Zealand Flax Pittosporurn tobira WMler's Dwarf Prunus CM -m niana Carolina'Laurel Cherry X4bephiolepis indica India HaWlh= Rosmatinus ofi'fcinnalis Rj. seraary Ruelha britbonia `Katie' clampsuRvellia Rua1a catifomice Ruellia Soplhora secundifMorx Texas M=W a Laurel Tecorna dans `Angmmu! Yellow Bel is Tecomaria capensis crepe HGneysuclrie yjy0SMa coog"Mre N.C.N. GRGUi DCOV.M. Acacia redvlcns Desert Carpet Baceitads x `fie ueonial' Ba11gaivviliea various Dalea gmggii Trailing Indigo Bush Lantana camas 'New Gold' La.niana tnoutevideusis Purple Trailing Lantana Myoporum parvifOlium Prostrate Myoporum 00eothera bcriandieri i exicae Ev&kg l'riyMNO 11yracanrtha fortuneans. 1 rr6tharn Room ariuua off'icinalis Ipfomatug, Turf Wrberm spe; i es Wrbena VMS - Aja igunon lep4opm Coral Vine Bougainvillea species 'Barbara karst' lytaslorne calliategicidos V10let Trnrdpct Vine Ficus pwnila Creeping Fig Macfa.dyena uuguis-eak - Cat's Uaw Ross. bank8i ae - J &dy Bunk's Rose ACCENTS- Aanual Color Agwm deserti D asert Agave Agave desinettimm Agave AIOd barbadeosis Alae Vers. Dasyli6on whezW Desert Spoon Hupetaloe parviilora Red Yucca Nfij 1enb a emersy:leyi %egsl KW But Grass it uhlerkbt*a dgEms: Deer Grass Noliva Miunca^pa Bear Crass Mormiurn tcnex Naw zeaEand Flax .56 Specific, Plan 03-067 550 2.8 CORAL MOUNTAIN CLUB (WEST TRACT) DESIGN GUIDELINES & STANDARDS Coral Mountain Club Community Theme The guidelines contained in this chapter identify unifying elements for design of permanent buildings and landscaping within that portion of each Planning Area west of Madison Street. Renderings, simulations and photographs are intended as thematic illustrations and do not depict final designs, nor should they limit the range of creative expression available to the developer or their professional design team. These guidelines will be reflected in subsequent implementing subdivision maps and development permits.The Specific Plan emphasizes the creation of low-density, walkable neighborhoods oriented around the golf course which has been long planned and previously entitled as the central amenity within the West Tract. These guidelines will assist the developer to execute a built environment that incorporates the following main concepts as depicted in the Figure 2.8-1, Illustrative Site Concepifievelop a residential golf community with access to recreational amenities, and commercial services. Establish residential neighborhoods that are linked through multi -use trails that connect neighborhoods throughout the West Tract. Develop buildings which respond to the desert environment and utilize passive heating / cooling techniques through orientation and design. Incorporate a variety of open space and recreational uses (active and passive). Design a planned community that complements existing development in the surrounding area and is compatible with the surrounding environment. Develop a community that is visually attractive and captures the essence of the Coral Mountain landscape. Embrace "Desert Modern" as the architectural theme for the West Tract. The intent of this broad theme is to encourage creativity, flexibility, variability, diversity and individuality when considering the architectural design of buildings within the West Tract. To implement these concepts, design guidelines and standards are provided for each of the West Tract's three Planning Areas. 2.8.1 Residential Guidelines (PA -III) Planning Area III (PA -III) will accommodate residential neighborhoods that take access from the primary entry road. Residences here will take advantage of spectacular south to southwest facing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. Pedestrian and bike trails will provide multi -use connectivity within the residential areas and with Neighborhood Specific Plan 03-067 551 N Oc CD n b 5811 Avenue C .• 6011 Avenue } ' ' Planting Zones : Desert Garden ► Legend QSingle Family Lot Residential (*B.O.H. Option*) Q Commercial Corner Q Project Entry QSingle Family Lot Homesites, Typ. © B.O.R./ CVWD Easement Q Cluster Residential Product Q Club Core Q Active Sports Q Golf Irrigation Lake (+/- 2 acres) QSingle Family Lot Residential (*B.O.H. Option*) Q Open Space/Recreation Area O Activity Lake (+/- io acres) © Coral Mountain Trail Connection *Potential B.O.H. Opertations TBD* Source: VITA Inc., Planning & Landscape Architecture Commercial corner. These guidelines shall apply equally to both attached and detached products. Residential Design Vision The intent in PA -III is to create residential neighborhoods that maximize privacy between individual homes while embracing the desert landscape. Residential design may be reflective of contemporary desert architecture, desert vernacular, and simple interpretations of architectural form. Spanish Colonial, Moorish, or other historically themed architectural styles should be avoided within the "Desert Modern" theme for the project. Residential design inspired and informed by the desert environment Planning for the residential areas within the West Tract is oriented towards and influenced by the community amenities as activity hubs for the project with open space and trail connections providing easy access to the amenities. Residents are encouraged to walk or use alternate forms of transportation to access the community amenities to help promote a pedestrian friendly community and reduce traffic. Specific Plan 03-067 553 The climate in La Quinta is characterized by sunny and hot weather in the summer and relatively mild winters with excellent air clarity. The design of residences shall incorporate elements that respond to these conditions, such as patios, courtyards, arcades, plazas, and outdoor pedestian areas which encourage residents to take advantage of outdoor living. Other residential site planning considerations include the following: The placement of structures should consider prevalent environmental conditions including sun orientation, prevailing winds, and desired views. Orientation of residential development edges should maximize view potential and access to natural open areas and recreation areas. Varying house configurations are encouraged to promote variety in the street scene. A combination of side -entering and front -entering garages with varied driveway locations are encouraged in order to manage repetitive curb cuts and yard patterns. Recreation areas/greenbelt features shall be, wherever feasible, visible upon entry to neighborhoods to enhance neighborhood value. Residential Materials Building materials will feature high-performance characteristics meant to reduce carbon footprint with sustainable attributes. Natural stone, stucco, architectural concrete, pre -finished metal panels, cementitious panels or siding, and thermally -modified wood siding may be utilized as the finish material for vertical surfaces in a range of natural colors which complement the desert landscape. Roofing products may be selected from a variety of metal profiles like corrugated or standing seam as well as a variety of roof materials. The colors of the roofing materials shall utilize lighter tones to reduce heat gain such as white, sand, and gray. Roof mounted photo -voltaic solar panels will be used throughout the project. Sustainable and high-performance residential building materials Residential Massing and Scale Residences will be broken down into a collection of building forms to avoid a singular massing expression. Courtyards are encouraged as an effective way to engage the desert landscape while reducing the apparent mass of a home. Stand alone casitas or guest and pool 2.60 Specific Plan 03-067 554 houses as well as detached garages with and without carriage units are encouraged. Buildings shall be generally one-story in scale and appropriately massed with secondary two-story elements that create visual intrest. Porches, loggias, trellises, and brise-soleil are encouraged to provide solar control and create opportunities to express crafted details. Residential Architecture A variety of architectural designs are preferred. Further, special consideration should be given to passive solar building orientation in order to develop custom homes that perform efficiently in the desert environment. Windows and Doors To withstand the desert heat, high-performance residential windows with responsive passive solar shading strategies are encouraged. Window sash colors shall complement the building. Large panes or walls of operable glass allow spaces to flow seamlessly indoor - outdoor may be used at select locations. Window and door details that reveal the depth of the wall assembly are encouraged. If trim is used, it shall complement the building. The style of windows shall be compatible with the architectural style of the residence. The eclectic use of different window styles or shapes on one building plane may be considered appropriate provided the resulting composition remains coherent. Clerestory windows encouraging a natural stack effect for ventilation and visually allowing the roof to float above the wall plane shall be used as long as they are consistent with the style of the residence. Ow A variety of residential window and d000r configurations adapted for the desert environment Specific Plan 03-067 555 Residential Entries The entry of a residence shall be an important design consideration for PA -II. Entries can be signified by porches, trellises, columns, recesses, projections, sidelights, other architectural features and\or vibrant color accents. Residential entries shall be scaled appropriately. Residential Porches, Loggias, Balconies, and Railings Front porches encourage neighborly interaction and signify entry to the unit. Porches and loggias shall be incorporated into residential design to the greatest extent possible with a focus on craftsmanship and sun control. Porches, loggias, and balconies facilitate seamless indoor -outdoor experiences and provide visual interest, shadow, texture, and shade. Second story balconies shall be designed as an integral component of the residence and may be expressed as recessed or additive. Railing details will be in harmony with the architectural character of the residence. Residential porches functioning as shading devices from the intense sun Residential Columns Columns shall be used as structural elements consistent with the architectural expression of an individual residence. Columns may be used as supports for porches, loggias, balconies, and roofs and express craftsmanship through connection details or material assemblies. Use of historic column forms (doric, ionic, corinthian, etc.) are not permitted. Residential Chimneys 2.62 Chimneys are often important design elements and signature features on residences. Chimney caps shall be simple in design and provide visual screening for vent or flue terminuses. The design of chimneys shall be compatible with residential architecture. Specific Plan 03-067 556 Residential Garage Doors Garage doors shall be compatible with the architectural style of the residence. Design details like porches, trellises, or deep recesses minimize the impact of garage doors from the driveway and street. It is encouraged that two single doors (or a single door designed to look like two doors) be utilized for two -car garages while three -car garages may incorporate a double door and single door or three single doors. Where three car garages are proposed, at least one garage entrance should be offset or detached from the remaining two entrances. Residential Exterior Stairs Exterior Stairs shall be simple elements which complement the massing and form of the residence. Residential Building Details Exterior residential mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by walls, fences, or landscaping. Guest houses, casitas, detached garages, and carports will be integrated into the design of individual residences and neighborhoods. Finish materials on raised planters for floral, vegetable, or herb gardens should complement materials used in the residence. Flashing and sheet -metal shall be prefinished. Vents, roof appurtenances, gutters, and downspouts shall be integrated into the residential design or screened from view. Residential Outdoor Spaces Residential courtyards and outdoor spaces will be designed to seamlessly integrate indoor and outdoor experiences. Trees, shade canopies, trellises, or other landscape elements provide shade and comfort and create outdoor gathering spaces that connect with interior uses. Thoughtfully planned outdoor spaces create privacy for individual residences Specific Plan 03-067 557 Residential Walls and Fences When walls and fences are visible from any street, open space, or other common areas, they shall be compatible in material, color, and design of adjacent architectural features. Residential Parking - All residential parking areas, including auto -courts, shall be screened from view of adjacent roadways and neighbors. 2.8.2 Neighborhood Commercial Guidelines (PA -V) Commercial Design Vision The Neighborhood Commercial (PA -V) area will create a memorable arrival experience and provide an attractive public retail experience. This commercial corner will provide homeowners and neighbors with convenient retail, food and beverage services in a relaxed lifestyle environment. 1 Neighborhood Commercial character inspiration The Neighborhood Commercial area has been planned as a publicly -accessible retail commercial use fronting Madison Street and Avenue 58. It is anticipated that the commercial development will include both neighborhood- and visitor -serving businesses. In addition to vehicular access, a multi -use trail will accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access from within the Coral Mountain Club community and from sidewalks on adjoining public streets. Commercial buildings will be one and two-story with pedestrian -level interest or detailing. The following principles are intended to guide the overall design and development goals of the Neighborhood Commercial area: 2.64 Specific Plan 03-067 558 Streets will maintain a narrow road profile with on -street parking to help slow traffic and encourage walking or electric cart circulation. Utilize smaller, neighborhood -scale retail buildings to create a walkable, pedestrian -friendly environment. Shade and pedestrian comfort will be provided through the use of arcades, shade devices, landscaping, and building orientation. Special areas such as paseos, plazas, and courtyards shall be created to further enhance the pedestrian scale of the commercial area and to provide comfortable spaces for outdoor dining. Provide flexibility in commercial architecture to encourage creative and innovative retail concepts. Commercial Materials Materials for Neighborhood Commercial (PA -V) should be complementary to the residential uses in PA -III and feature high-performance characteristics with sustainable attributes. Natural stone, stucco, architectural concrete, pre -finished metal panels, cementitious panels or siding, and thermally -modified wood siding may be utilized as the finish material for vertical surfaces in a range of natural colors which complement the desert landscape. Roofing products may be selected from a variety of metal profiles like corrugated or standing seam as well as a variety of membrane roofs. The colors of the roofing materials shall conform to a range of lighter tones to reduce heat gain such as white, sand, and gray. Roof mounted photo -voltaic solar panels may be used throughout the project to encourage the use of alternate transportation within the project. Parking areas shall provide clearly defined pedestrian circulation. 2.8.3 Coral Mountain Club Landscape Guidelines (West Tract) The landscape design will establish an identity and theme for the project and will be an overall unifying element. Landscape Elements Figure 2.8-1 Conceptual Landscape Plan depicts the overall landscape concept for the project for illustrative purposes. Generally, the conceptual landscape plan incorporates landscape elements that establish a "sense of place" and creates visual unity and compatibility throughout the project. Key landscape elements would include entryways, streetscapes, and common areas described below. Final landscape design will be subject to Site Development Permit review and Final Landscaping Plan permits. Project Entries The principal community entry from Madison Street is intended to create a "sense of place" upon entering the West Tract. Walls, fences, monumentation, and all other hardscape elements will utilize materials, color, and detailing that are compatible with the Project architecture. Specific Plan 03-067 559 Landscape plantings distinguish the project entrance through the use of grove trees and textural shrubs and grasses. The primary entry road leading from the primary project entry will provide central access to individual residential communities and amenities. An informal arrangement of water efficient trees and shrubs will charactize this corridor. The landscape treatment along this spine road is designed to establish physical and visual connectivity between uses within the West Tract. Perimeter Public Streetscape Landscaping and trails along the perimeter roadway frontages are designed to provide a varied, comforting environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians through provision of a meandering multi -use trail as a component of the public street system. Informal arrangements of water efficient, drought tolerant plantings create interest through texture, color, and form. Common Areas Common area landscaping is intended to complement the residential character of the project, creating a unique sense of place and connectivity. The trail network along the primary entry road connects to the community trail system. Select tree and shrub plantings will blend with the native landscape, providing shade for the open space areas and a backdrop to the community. Thematic Planting Zones Figure 2.8-2, Planting Zones Diagram identifies the various Thematic Planting Zones within the West Tract. Each Planting Zone is described in further detail in Figures 2.8-3 to 2.8.6 Native Landscape As illustrated in Figure 2.8-2, Planting Zones Diagram, this Area is to be maintained as existing landscape and preserved as open space. These areas may require refurbushing and some ongoing maintenance. Desert Revegetation Depicted in Figure 2.8-3, Planting Zones Diagram: Desert Revegetation, the Desert Revegetation Landscape links the community with the native Coral Mountain landscape by creating an enhanced planting zone that steadily transitions to the surrounding open spaces and landscapes as it nears the southern and western perimeter of the Coral Mountain Club property. This enhancement of a largely native landscape provides a more robust trail and outdoor pursuits experience while also creating a varied and dynamic backdrop for the community Desert Garden As shown in Figure 2.8-4, Planting Zones Diagram: Desert Garden, the Desert Garden Landscape engages the community by cultivating a curated "desert" environment within the common areas along roadways or woven into each neighborhood. Residents can walk out of their home and immediately be immersed in the Coral Mountain Club experience. This garden 2.66 Specific Plan 03-067 560 landscape is characterized by a mix of date palms and Washingtonia Palms, and a selection of water efficient accent trees, shrubs, and grasses. As part of the planting concept, "edible plant palettes" may be established within this zone as appropriate to service culinary and community food security needs. Desert Oasis Depicted in Figure 2.8-5, Planting Zones Diagram: Desert Oaisis the Desert Oasis Landscape begins at the main project entry and extends along the central access road corridor, providing residents with a more punctuated, welcoming garden retreat as a contrast to the surrounding desert landscape. This landscape is characterized by a greater mixture of foliage colors and types, with species that maintain their appearance throughout the year. The landscape and architecture work together to provide a shady and comfortable environment. Flowering accent plants add seasonal interest throughout the year. The design geometry is casual, but has a direct relationship to the surrounding architecture. The contrast between straight, formal architectural walls and the flowing, organic landscape creates a dynamic signature for key gathering spaces within the community. Village Landscape Illustrated in Figure 2.8-6, Planting Zones Diagram: Village Landscape, the Village Landscape consists primarily of streetscape and limited common area plantings within the village core, and is more "urban" in character. Trees and palms that afford shade and provide an architectural quality through their arrangement are a domanint component of this landscape zone. Accent shrubs, grasses, and succulents enhance the urban, architectural quality of the village core. Allees or groves of palm or citrus afford a geometric framework within select "public" spaces such as the hotel arrival, along the boardwalk, or in parking areas. In parks or other village common areas the planting geometry is more casual and varied. As part of the planting concept, "edible plant palettes" may be established within this zone as appropriate to service culinary and community food security needs. Specific Plan 03-067 561 N 0C Planting Zones Diagram LANDSCAPE THEME ❑Desert Revegetation: • Transitional planting zone that creates an enhanced desert landscape at the foot of Coral Mountain. • Low-water use native and/or adapted tree and shrub species. • Informal arrangements of canopy trees. • Areas of unpla—d! earth are left open between shrubs and trees. ❑Desert Garden: • Mass plantings of color and texture. • Low-water use native and/or adapted tree and shrub species. • Informal arrangements of canopy trees along roadways and trails. • Open areas between shrubs. Desert Oasis: • Data palm grove is the principle organizing inference -- reminiscent of historical agricultural patterns. Expanses of mounding grasses • Agave and taller shrubs provide foundation planting to community and entry walls. F-1Amenity Landscape: • Date palms line the main road creating an "architectural' framework for the arrival. • A mixed palette of succulents and mounding grasses utilize subtle texture and color differences to provide interest along the streetscape. "Note: Other plants may be added to the palette consistent with the CVWD "Lush and Efficient' Landscape Manual for all areas, except where certain species conflict with the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan requirements as specified in MSHCP table 4-113. See also section 2.8.5" Source: VITA Inc., Planning & Landscape Architecture Base Plants Data Palm Phoenix dactylifera California Fan Palm Washingtonia filifers Honey Mesquite Prosopis glandulosa 4 Prostrate Acacia Acacia redolens'Desert Carpet' i ocotillo Fouquieria splendens Desert Revegetation The Desert Revegetation Landscape links the Community with the native Coral Mountain landscape by creating an enhanced native planting zone that steadily transitions to the adjacent open spaces as it nears the southern and western perimeter of the property. This enhancement of a largely native landscape provides a more robust trail and outdoor pursuits experience while also creating a varied and dynamic backdrop for the wave and Community, helping to screen Back -of -House operations and the view of the dike from the village core. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PALMS SHRUBS Phoenix dactyfifera Date Palm Acacia redolens Prostrate Acacia Washingtonia filifera California Fan Palm Dalea groggii Trailing Indigo Bush Yucca rostrata Big Bend Yucca TREES Acacia smallii Desert Sweet Acacia GRASSES Cercidium praecox Palo Brea Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Cercidium floddum Blue Palo Verde Prosopis glandulosa Honey Mesquite Figure 2.8-3 Planting Zones : Desert Revegetation Accent Plants va i Palo Brea Cercidium praecox 4 Blue Palo Verde Cercidium floddum I s ♦ Big Bend Yucca Yucca rostrata 400 Trailing Indigo Bush Dale. greggii Desert Sweet Acacia Acacia smallii Source: VITA Inc., Planning & Landscape Architecture N J O Base Plants Date Palm Phoenix dactylifera J California Fan Palm Washingtonia filifera 40 Deer Grass Muhlenbergia dgens Black Dale. "else frutescens 41 Desert Spoon Dasylidon wheeled Desert Garden The Desert Garden Landscape merges the surf village with the estate lots and future residential phases within the Community by creating a "curated desert" environment within the common areas, along roadways, and with each neighborhood. Residents can walk out their back door and immediately be immersed in the beauty of the native desert environment. This landscape is characterized by a mix of date palms and washingtonia palms, palo verde, desert spoon, trailing groundcovers and grasses. BOTANICALNAME COMMONNAME BOTANICALNAME COMMONNAME PALMS SHRUBS Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm Chamaerops humilis Mediterranean Fan Palm Washingtonia filifers California Fan Palm Leucophyllum frutexcens Texas Ranger Pittosphorum tobira Pittospomm TREES Dalea frutescens Black Dalea Acacia smallii Desert Sweet Acacia Dasylifion wheeled Desert Spoon Cercidium floddum Blue Palo Verde Prosopis glandulosa Honey Mesquite GRASSES Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Figure 2.8-4 Planting Zones : Desert Garden Accent Plants 87 Honey Mesquite Prosopis glandulosa I' `♦ lip Pittosporum tobira . Blue Palo Verde Cercidium floddum Desert Sweet Acacia Acacia smallii Texas Ranger Leucophyllum fmtescens Source: VITA Inc., Planning & Landscape Architecture N J Base Plants Date Palm Phoenix dactylifera California Fan Palm Washingtonta filifera l! Blue Palo Verde Cerotdium flondum Desert Spoon Dasylirion wheeleri Mediterranean Fan Palm Chamaerops humilis Desert Oasis The Desert Oasis Landscape is located at the main arrival points of the Community Entrance, Surf Club and the Farm, providing guests and residents a more welcoming garden retreat as a contrast to the surrounding desert landscape. This landscape is characterized by a greater mixture of foliage colors and textures, with species that maintain their appearance throughout the year. The landscape and architecture work together to provide a shady and comfortable environment. Flowering accent plants add seasonal interest throughout the year. The design geometry is casual, but has a direct relationship to the surrounding architecture. The contrast between straight formal architectural walls and the organic landscapes create a dynamic signature for gathering spaces within the Community. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PALMS SHRUBS Chamaerops humilis Mediterranean Fan Palm Anigozanthos flavidus Kangaroo Paw Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm Dalea frutescens Black Dalea Washingtonia fltfera California Fan Palm Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise TREES GRASSES Acacia smallii Desert Sweet Acacia Festuca glauca Common Blue Fescue Cemidium floridum Blue Palo Verde Cercidium praecox Palo Brea ACCENTS Citrus Species Citrus Agave attenuate Ghost Agave Olea europa Olive Agave desmettiana Smooth Agave Prosopis glandulosa Honey Mesquite Agave parryi Parry's Agave Agave vilmodniana Octopus Agave Dasylirion wheeled Desert Spoon Figure 2.8-5 Planting Zones : Desert Oasis Accent Plants I HoneyMesquite Prosopis glandulosa Ghost Agave Agave attenuate 4 Kangaroo Paw Anigozanthos flavidus s Black Dalea Dalea frutescens Bird of Paradise Strelitzia reginae Source: VITA Inc., Planning & Landscape Architecture N J N Base Plants ' r qr,.m Accent Plants Date Palm Queen Victoria Agave Phoenix dactylifera Agave victonae gine AL ♦ �.� California Fan Palm Ghost Agave Washingtonia filifera Agave attenuata 00 Ruellia Purple Bougainvillea Ruellia calitomica Bougainvillea 'Dwarf Purple' Amenity Landscape 11ilip The Village Landscape consists primarily of streetscape and limited common area plantings within the village core, and is more "urban" in character. Trees and palms that afford shade and provide an architectural quality through their arrangement are a domanint component of this landscape zone. Accent shrubs, grasses, and succulents enhance the urban, architectural quality of the village core. Allees or groves of palm or citrus afford a geometric framework within select "public" spaces such as the hotel arrival, along the boardwalk, or in parking areas. In parks or other village common areas the planting geometry is more casual and varied. 40 Parry's Agave BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME Bird of Paradise Agave parryi PALMS SHRUBS Strelitzia reginae Chamaerops humilis Mediterranean Fan Palm Bougainvillea 'Dw f Purple' Purple Bougainvillea Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm Carissa macrocarpa Natal Plum Washingtonia fififera California Fan Palm Ruellia califomica Ruellia Strelitzia regime Bird of Paradise ' TREES Acacia smallii Desert Sweet Acacia GRASSES Cercidium flandum Blue Palo Verde Features glauca Common Blue Fescue Cercidium praecox Palo Brea Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Citrus Species Citrus Clea europa Olive ACCENTS Prosopis glandulosa Honey Mesquite Agave attenuate Ghost Agave .. Agave parryi Parry's Agave 41 Agave victonae gime Queen Victoria Agave Mediterranean Fan Palm Deer Grass Chamaerops humilis Muhlenbergia rigens Figure 2.8-6 Planting Zones : Amenity Lanscape Source: VITA Inc., Planning & Landscape Architecture 2.8.4 Coral Mountain Club (West Tract) Plant Material Palette Table 3, Coral Mountain Club Plant Material Palette, provides a list of compatible trees, shrubs, and groundcovers to be incorporated as part of the landscape design. Landscape architecture for the project is intended to create a lush desert character of visual variety and textural interest while complying with water conserving techniques based on plant selection and technical irrigation system design. Consistent with this goal, use of drought tolerant plant material is a primary consideration in the development of the plant palette to further aid in the conservation of water while promoting this lush desert theme in the prevailing landscape image. To provide guidance to the builders and designers of future projects within the project, the plant material palette gives guidance to builders and developers within the project. Species in addition to those listed are to be considered in order to provide diversity; however, the plant material in the list provided is relatively successful in the unique soil and climactic conditions of project site. TABLE 3: CORAL MOUNTAIN CLUB PLANT MATERIAL PALETTE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME Acacia Aneura Mulga Trees Acacia salicina* Native Willow* Acacia saligna* Blue Leaf Wattle* Acacia smalli* Desert Sweet Acacia* Acacia stenophylla* Shoestring Acacia* Albizia julibrissin Mimosa Tree Bauhinia purpurea Purple Orchid Tree Brahea armata Mexican Blue Brachychiton populneus Palm Bottle Tree Caesalpinia cacalaco Cascalote Callistemon viminalis Bottlebrush Tree Cercidium floridum Blue Palo Verde Cercidium hybrid Desert Museum Cercidium praecox Palo Brea Chamerops humilis Med. Fan Palm Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow Chitalpa tashkentenis Chitalpa Chorisia linearis Desert Willow Chorisia speciosa Silk Floss Tree Citrus Species Citrus Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress Indian Dalbergia sissoo Indian Rosewood Eysenhardtia orthocarpa Kidneywood Fraxinus Uhdei'Majestic Beauty' Evergreen Ash 2.73 Specific Plan 03-067 567 SHRUBS Fraxinus velutina Arizona Ash Geij era parviflora Australian Willow Humilis Med. Fan Palm Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Lantern Tree Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Lysiloma microphylla var. thomberri Feather Bush Melaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree Olea europaea* Olive*, ** Olneya Tesota Desert Ironwood Parkinsonia aculeata* Mexican Palo Verde* Phoenix dactylifera* Date Palm* Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Pinus eldarica Afghan Pine Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Pithecellobium mexicanum Mexican Ebony Pithecellobium spinosa Texas Ebony Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite Prosopis glandulosa Texas Honey Mesquite Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Quercus suber Crok Oak Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak Rhus lancea African Sumac Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree Thevetia peruviana Yellow Oleander Ulmus parvifolia "Drake" Drake Elm Vitex agnus-castus Chase Tree Washingtonia filifera California Fan Palm Washingtonia robusta* Mexican Fan Palm* Acacia farnesiana* Sweet Acacia* Bucida buceris Black Olive Prosopis species Mesquite Caesalpinia pulcherrima Red Bird of Paradise Carissa grandiflora Natal Plum Cassia nemophilla Desert Cassia Chrysactinia mexicana Chamisa Chrysothamnus nauseosus Damianita Daisy Dietes vegeta Fortnight Lily Dodonaea viscosa Green Hopseed Bush Hemerocallis hybrid Daylily Specific Plan 03-067 568 Heteromeles arbutifolia Hibiscus species Justicia califomica Leucophyllum Species Myrtus communis 'Compacta' Nandina domestica Photinia fraseri Phormium tenax Pittosporum tobira Prunus caroliniana Rhaphiolepis indica Rosmarinus officinalis Ruellia brittonia'Katie' Ruellia californica Simmondsia chinensis Sophora secundiflora Tecoma stans 'Angustata' Tecomaria capensis Xlyosma congestum GROUND- Acacia redolens `Desert Carpet' Baccharis x Centennial COVER Bougainvillea Species Dalea greggii Lantana camara `New Gold Lantana montevidensis Myoporum parvifolium Pyracantha fortuneana Rosmarinus officinalis `Prostrates' Turf Verbena species VINES Antigonon leptopus Bougainvillea species Clytostoma callistegioides Ficus pumila Macfadyena unguis-cati Rosa banksiae ACCENTS 2.75 Annual Color Agave americana Agave deserti Agave desmettiana Agave parryi Agave victoriae-reginae Aloe barbadensis Dasylirion wheeleri Echinocactus grusonii Festuca glauca Fouquieria splendens Hesperaloe parviflora Toyon Hibiscus Chuparosa Texas Ranger Compact Myrtle Heavenly Bamboo Photinia New Zealand Flax 'Wheeler's Dwarf Carolina Laurel Cherry India Hawthorn Rosemary Compact Ruellia Ruellia Jojoba Texas Mountain Laurel Yellow Bells Cape Honeysuckle N.C.N. Prostrate Acacia* Centennial Coyote Brush Bougainvillea Trailing Indigo Bush New Gold Lantana Purple Trailing Lantana Prostrate Myoporum Firethorn Creeping Rosemary Turf Verbena Coral Vine 'Barbara Karst' Violet Trumpet Vine Creeping Fig Cat's Claw Creeper Lady Bank's Rose Century Plan Desert Agave Agave Parry's Agave Queen Victoria Agave Aloe Vera Desert Spoon Golden Barrel Cactus Common Blue Fescue Ocotillo Red Yucca Specific Plan 03-067 569 Muhlenbergia emersylleyi 'Regal Mist' Bull Grass Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Nolina bigelovii Nolina Nolina microcarpa Bear Grass Phormium tenax New Zealand Flax Yucca rostrata Big Bend Yucca *Species that are prohibited within certain areas of the project as depicted on Exhibit 13, Conceptual PBS Barrier Plan. "Fruiting varieties limited to trees designated for active farm -to -table growing at least 500 feet from any western project boundary; ornamental use is prohibited. 2.8.5 Sheep Protection Plan (West Tract) Only the project areas west of Madison Street include specific measures to ensure that Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (PBS) are restricted from entering the project and that promote proper human interactions between residents and PBS. Barrier Plan The project will incorporate fencing and walls along the entire project perimeter as shown on Figure 2.8-7 Conceptual PBS Barrier Plan. This will serve as a physical barrier to prevent Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS) from accessing the site. The fence/wall design will be approved by the City of La Quinta in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CA DFW). It will draw from the prototypical fencing types described in the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) "PBS Barrier Project" as shown in Figure 2.8-8Typical PBS Fence Cross Section and Figures 2.8-9a & b Representative PBS Fence Photos, and will be consistent with the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Additionally, Tribal monitoring will apply to the fence construction and trail alignment in any areas containing Tribal cultural resources per City of La Quinta requirements. Plant Palette The project plant palette (Table 3 in Section 2.8.4) includes approved native specimens listed as "Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping" (CVMSHCP Table 4- 112) and will prohibit specimens listed as "Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants" (MSHCP Table 4-113) in certain open spaces areas and on lots adjoining any sheep barrier as shown on Figure 2.8-7 Conceptual PBS Barrier Plan. In addition, when an implementing project is approvd, the approved project plant palette will be referenced in the Project CC&Rs and will be enforceable by the property owners' association for the life of the project. Specific Plan 03-067 570 Legend: — – – — Project Boundary Proposed 6CMU Community Perimeter Wall Proposed 8' Sheep Barrier Restricted Plant Palette Coral Mountain I I 50' MIN. WIDTH TOE OF SLOPE - CORAL MOUNTAIN Notes: 1. Information shown is conceptual only. Final alignment may be adjusted to accommodate ground features and other design and/or environmental considerations. 2. Perimeter Wall & Sheep Barrier as approved by City of La Quinta. 3. Sheep barrier to consist of 8' high fencing as shown in approved CVCC "PBS Barrier Project" (see Figure XX) or equivalent combination of 6' CMU and 2' decorative wrought iron or tubular steel view fence as appropriate. 4. See Table 2.8-1 for plant restrictions. Source: MSA Consulting, Inc. TOE OF SLOPE - CORAL MOUNL 50' MIN. WIDTH AVENUE 58 N.T.S. Exhibit Date: June 27, 2023 CONCEPTUAL PBS BARRIER PLAN FIGURE 2.8- 571 i 17.1' �I _ N; EX. �11 GROUND 3' 4' 3' 4' 5' 4.6' LU x (9 PROP. 8' Q SHEEP 1 o� BARRIER 1 I h 4:1 `° 441PROP. ROCK CATCHMENT Source: MSA Consulting, Inc. 24' 1 VARIES 8.8'- 14.5 1BENCH z PROP. BERM J o� — 3' m 2% MIN. 19n%MAXMAX. SPA Exhibit Date: July 21, 2022 TYPICAL PBS FENCE CROSS SECTION FIGURE 14 PAGE 37 572 '%F a Source: CVCC Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Barrier Project Exhibit Date: July 21, 2022 REPRESENTATIVE PBS FENCE PHOTOS FIGURE 15A PAGE 38 573 Fence Type: Welded Steel ... AM o .. of 4N, Fence Type: Chain Link Fence Type: Tubular Steel Source: CVCC Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Barrier Project Exhibit Date: July 21, 2022 REPRESENTATIVE PBS FENCE PHOTOS FIGURE 15B PAGE 39 574 �F Fence Type: Tubular Steel Source: CVCC Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Barrier Project Exhibit Date: July 21, 2022 REPRESENTATIVE PBS FENCE PHOTOS FIGURE 15B PAGE 39 574 Zoning and Development Regulations 3.1 SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICTS A. Purpose. To provide fle>dble regulations via the specific plan process which allow the use of creative land plwau ng and design techniques to create master -planned developments incorpo- rating coordinated building design, integrated greenbelts, private recreation facilities, emphasiz- ing a separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic:, and an overall increase in recreational ameni- ty. The regulations presented herein are pursuant to Article 8B Authority and Scope of Specific Plans of the State Planning and Zoning Law of the Government Code, Section 65000 et seq and are in compliance with the Califomia. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and amend Chapter 9 of the City of La. Quints Zoning Code (9.60.290). The specific plan overlay district allows variations in tourist commercial land uses as provided by Section 9.40.030 (per General Plan Policy 2-1.19). Specific plan densities, development stan- dards and other features will be made consistent with the General Plan by adoption of this Specific Plan_ Permilted Uses. The Specific Plan 03-067 delineates the permitted uses within the plan area boundaries defined within Planning Area I through Planning Area Vi_ Uses are tailored to indi- vitkud site locations within the Specific Flan 03-067 plan boundary, the existing street systems, topography, and other.characteristics. Zoning Designation, The Specific Plan 03-067 spccifres overlay zoning adopted in conjunction with approval of the Specific Plan document. Upon approval, the Specific Plan 03-067 becomes an integral part of the zoning for the property within the plan boundary and, for the plan area, becomes the Official Zoning for the City of La Quinta. Property ming shall consist of the base district symbol followed by the specific plan symbol in parentheses; for example, Low Density Residential - LDR would be noted as LDR(RSP). Specific Plan 03-067 3.1 575 Zoning and Development Regulation and Standards by Planning Area Zoning and Development Regulation and Standards are presented for Planning Area I through Planning Area VI as delineated in the .Plaguing Area Exhibit and are presented in the following order: Plan ningArea I Golf Course GC -(RSP) USES AND STANDARDS Description of Uses in Planning Area I Zoning and Development RegWation and Standards Planning Area II Low Density Residentiai LDR — (RSP) USES AND STANDARDS Description of Uses in Planning Area II Zoning and Development Regulation and Standards Planning Area In Low Density Residential LDR — (RSP) USES AND STANDARDS Description of Uses in Planning Area III Zoning and Development Regulation and Standards Planning Area IV Golf Course GC — (RSP) USES AND STANDARDS Description of Uses in Planning Area TV Zoning and Development Regulation and Standards Planning Area V Neighborhood Commercial NC-- (RSP) USES AND STANDARDS Description of Uses in Planning Area V Zoning and Development Regulation and Standards Planning Area VI Golf Course GC — (RSP) USES AND STANDARDS Description of Uses in Planning Area VT Zoning and Development Regulation. and Standards 3.2, Specific Plan 03-067 576 3.1.1 Planning Area I GOLF COURSII—GC -- (RSP) Description of Uses in Planning Area I Tice foliowing section establishes the permitted land use and development standards for property designated as GC within Planning Area 1 as depicted on the Land Use Plan. Golf Supporting Use and Facilities address all land within Planning Area 1. Within the overall plan boundary, Planning Area I proposed I I acres development uses and stan- dards for the Specific Plan 03-067 Golf and Recreation Club, resident and guest serving recre- ation amenities and supporting uses. A Golf Coarse Residential Specific Plass GC`(RSP) overlay for this project area is proposed to address land use within Planning Area I with development regulation and criteria presented herein. Planning Area I of the Specific Plan 03-067 establishes standards for the location and develop- ment of recreation amenities consistent with the resort oriented mature of the project and project- ed trends in golf supporting facilities to serve the two 18 hale courses of Specific Plan 03-067. A. Purpose and .intent. To provide for the development and regulation of a range of special- ized resident and guest serving uses oriented to Golf and Tennis Club, resident and guest serving recreation center and supporting uses, located in areas designated within .Planning Area 1 in the Specific Plan. B. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses for land designated GC on the Land Use flan and/or Proposed Zoning exhibits as GC -(RSP) includes all currently existing allowable uses delineated in the Golf Course district delineated in the La. Quinta Zoning ordinance and as specified within this Specific Plan. C. Temporary & Intedin Uses. Temporary or recurring outdoor event staging facilities and related uses serving the use and on-site construction and site guard offices irscluding relocatable buildings, Temporary golf house, sales and marketing buildings and offices are allowed. D. Accessory Uses. Resort recreation and stale areas, and maintenance facilities and sites. Signs, .fences and walls, subject io the design criteria set fortis in this Specific Plan doc anent. Satellite dish and other antennas, subject to this Specific Pian, E. Of1wrAflowabfe Uses. Water wells and pumping stations, water tanks and reservoirs, pub- lic flood control facilities and devices as necessary to facilitate the CVWD or developer in water management and conservation E Allowable Site Coverage. As specified herein. G. Development Standards The following development standards apply to property proposed Spccific Plat, 09-067 3.3 577 For development designated on the Land Use Plan and/or Proposed Zoning exhibits as GC -- (RSP) and as described within the text of this Specific Plan. Standards are established for all buildings, structures and uses within Planning Area I. BUILDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 'v:.� �*"ac �..li�.:.a:�Si.Li �:.r_._..`. r..i:_..1t-.£LoA�i.�..r'�r i• Max. Building Height 35 ft.*+ Max. No. of Stories 2 Min. Front Yard Setback from: Street or Parking Stall Curb 8 ft. Pedestrian Circulation Walks 5 ft. Garage/Carport Setback 5 ft. Mui. Total Side. Yard Setback 10 ft.** Min. Interior/Exterior Side Yard Setbacks 5 ft. Max. Allowable Wall Height 10 ft.*** Max. Parking Required 1 space/250sf**** +Height is limited to 22' for a setback of 150' from R.O.W. on Madison & Avenue 58. *Not including chimney projections, bell towers, spires, etc. **AC Units, trellis elements, pools, and spas are allowed to encroach into side and rear setback areas. ***2' of the 14' ht. may be retaining with 8' freestanding. ****The area (sf) of the cart garage will not he included in the parking requirement calculation. The following uses are permitted in Planning Area 1. 3.4 Recreation Uses Outdoor lawn and recreation uses. Golf and Tennis clubs or complexes. Health and fitness clubs & Spas. Golf course & turf/landscape areas. Live entertainment as an accessory use to a "one-time" event. 2. Serpi-Public Uses Museum uses. Parks, play fields, botanical garden uses, and passive and active open space area. Bicycle, cart, and pedestrian trails and storage facilities. Swimming pools and spas. 3. Lodging Uses Not allowed 4. Accessory Uses Private parking lots, carports and open-air parking stalls as an accessory use to Residential or Open Space uses. Signs in accordance with this Specific Plan. Antennas and satellite dishes in accordance with this Specific Plan. Specific Plan 03-667 578 5. Temrmr ary & .interim Uses ** Interim event parking lots for events anticipated to eV. end over three or more days of use, Temporary outdoor event staging facilities. **Temporary outdoor event staging facilities anticipated to extend over three or more days of use. *"Construction and site guard offices in relocatable buildings. * A single asterisk indicates an allowable use requiring approval of a Conditional Use Permit from the La Quinta Planning Commission. ** A double asterisk indicates an allowable use on a temporary_ basis requiring approval from the La Quinta Coiwnunity Developmeni Director. OPEN SPACE LAND USE Opera Space land in Planning Area i is defined by the areas adjacent to the recreation club amni- ties. Criteria related to development of tine open space surrounding recreation club facilities is presented and allowable in all areas of Planning Area identifia The following development standards apply to the construction of clubfrecreation facility buildings for supporting structures within the golf course zone on property designated as GC -. (RSP) on the land Use Pian, ANCILLARY BUILDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS t Height is limited to 22' for a setback of 150' frons KO.W. on Madison & Avenue 58. `riot including fbigpoles, cldmne}' vrojections, bell towers, spires, or building projections that cin; nonessmliat to the Atnetionw space of tfte o man=ial building (i.e. bell towers etc) Specific Plan, 03-067 3.5 579 Max. Building Height 28 ff.*T Max. No. of Stories i Min. Setback from: Street. or Parking Stall Curti 2 ft. Pedestrian Circulation Walks 2 ft. Structure Setback 5 R Min. Building to Building Setback 5 ft, I &n- Interior/Exterior Side Yard Setbacks to adjacent lot l0 fl. Maximum Allowable Screen Wall Height. 10 ft. t Height is limited to 22' for a setback of 150' frons KO.W. on Madison & Avenue 58. `riot including fbigpoles, cldmne}' vrojections, bell towers, spires, or building projections that cin; nonessmliat to the Atnetionw space of tfte o man=ial building (i.e. bell towers etc) Specific Plan, 03-067 3.5 579 3.1.2 Planning Area U RESIDENTIAL SPED I:C PLAN RL -(RSP) USES AND STANDARDS Description of Uses in finning Arca D Planning Area U encompasses development uses and standards for the Specific Plan 03-067 Villas and Casitas as well as ancillary supporting recreational uses and areas. This Planning Area is located centrally within the eastern half of tine project site and encompassed 16 acres of land. Planning Area B of the Land Use flan proposed, within its boundaries, one Lmderlying zone, Lour Density Residential LDR — (RSP). A Residential Specific Plan (RSP) overlay for Planning Area iI is proposed to address residential supporting uses lard use within Planning Area 11 witli development regulation and criteria pre- sented herein, The development criteria for open space, passive, and active recreation areas and other uses is also deli.ncated for Planning Area R herein. RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN (RSP) USES AND STANDARDS The #allowing section delineates the permitted land use and development standards for property designated as Low Density Residential Specific Plan LDR - (RSP) on the Land Use Plan, within Planning Area JI, A. Purpose and fateat. To provide for the development and regulation of a eange of special- ized residential uses oriented to Golf club and resort lifestyle activiV, located in areas designated within Planning Area H in the Specific Plan. Representative land use include Residential owner- ship, short term and long term rentals, and leasing rises as well as supporting open space and recreational use. B. Perriutted Uses. Permitted uses for land designated LDR - (RSP) on the Land Use Plan and/or Proposed Zoning exhibits as LDR - (RSP) includes all currently exiat.ing residential serv- ing uses and allowable uses delineated in the Low Density Residential district description of the La Quina Zoning ordinance and as specified herein. C. Temporary & Interim Uses_ TmWormy or recurring outdoor event staging facilities and related uses serving the Residential use and on-site construction and site guard offices including relocstable bi fldings. Temporary sales and marketing buildings and offices may be allowed D. Accessary Uses. Recreation and staging areas for recreation events, maintenance facilities and sites. Signs, fences and walls, subject to the design criteria set forth in this Specific Plan doe- tunent. Satellite dish and other antennas, subject to this Specific Plan. E. 011ier Allowable Uses. Water wells and pumping stations, water tanks and reservoirs, pub- lic flood control facilities and devices as necessary to facilitate the CVWD or developer in water management and conservation. 3.6 Specific Plan 03-067 580 R Development Mandards. The following development standards apply to property Proposed far development designated on the Land Use Plan andlor Proposed Zoning exhibits as Low Density Residential LDR. — (RSP) and as described within the text of this Specific Plan. Standards are established for Loiv Density Residential LDR -- (RSP) buildings, structures and uses within Planning Area. IL Residential Detached and Attached Development Standards These swtdards apply to all land Within Planning Area it as described withi--r the text and graph- ics of this Specific Plan. B=ING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Mex Building Height 28 fl.*t Maxx No. of Stories 2 Man. Livable Floor Area Per Unit 1500 sq/f3. Min. Front Yard Setback from: Street or Parking StaII Curb to ft_ Pedestrian Circulation Wallis S ft. Garage/Carport Setback 5 ft. Min. Total Side Yard Setback 10 ft."t Mitt. Interior/Bxterior Side Yard Setbacks Q ft. * *f Max. Allowable Wall Height 8 ft.*** Max. Parking Required Per Current Code t Height is Thuited to 22'6)r a setback of 150- £rotn ROX on Madison & Avenuc 58, "Not ineiudiug chimney projections, bell towers, spins, etc- " AC Units, trellis clerrments, pools, and spas are allowed to encroach into side and recur sctbacR areas, " Z of the $' h1. may be retaining with 6' freestanding. The following uses are pennitted in Planning Area ff. Recreation Uses Outdoor lawn and recreation uses. Pool/spa and water recreation uses. Live entertainment as an accessory use to a "one -tune" event. Semi -Public lives Parks, play fields, botanical garden uses, and passive and active open space area. Bicycle, cart, and pedestrian trails. Swimming .pools and spas. 3. Lodorng C1ses Residential use as delineated within this 3.1.2 herein. Spacific Plan 03-067 3.7 581 4. Accessory Uses Private parking lots, carports and open-air parking stalls as an accessory use to residential uses. Signs in accordance wAb this Specific Plan. Antennas and satellite dishes in accordance with this Specific Plan, 5. Temporary & .interim Uses Sales offices, corlstruction and site guard offices is relocatable or modillarbuildings, ** Interim event parking lots for everdss anticipated to extend over tyre`. or more days of use.* Temporary outdoor event staging facilities. Temporary outdoor event staging facilities anticipated to extend over three or more days of use.*" * A single asterisk indicates an allowable use requb-irrg approval of a Con&rioval Use Permit firnn the La Q:rinia Planning Commission. ** A double asterisk indicates wi allowable ime on a ternporary b,%sis regniring approval front the La Quinta Cnimnunity Development Dimc-tor. OPEN SPACE LAND USE Open Space land in Plaaning Area II is defined by the areas adjacent to the residential units, Amenity and supporting facilities are located on adjacent fingers of greenbelt within the devel- opment plan and may be pools, fountains, spas, etc. Development criteria is defined herein. The foliowing development standards apply to the construction of buildings for supporting residential unit and recreational features (such as satellite pool buildings) on property designated as Low Density Residential LDR --- (RSP)on the Land Use Plan, ANCILLARY BUILDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Max. Building Height 28 ft*t Max._ No. of Stories I Min. Setback from: Street or Parking Stall Curb 2 ft. Pedestrian Circulation Walks 2 it, Structure Setback 5 ft Min. Building to Building Setback. 5 ff. Min. Interior/Exterior Side Ward Setbacks to adjacent lot 10 ft. .Maxirnurn Allowable Screen Wall Beight 10 ft. t Height is limited to 22' for a satbael: of -15o' from R.O.W. on Madison & Avenue 58. *Nol including flagwics, chimney prciections, bell towers, spires, or bcvlaing projcc6ons thst are nonemendat to the fiinetianal space of the =-an,ercial building (i.e. bell totiven eW.) 3.8 Spec4ic Plao 031067 582 3.1.3 planning Area M RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN LDR-(RSP) USES AND STANDARDS Description of Uses to PlanniagArea M Within the overall plan boundary, Planning Area ITI encompasses development uses and standards for the Coral Mountain proposed residential grounds as well as ancillary supporting recreational uses and areas. This Planning Area is located throughout the project site and encompasses 424.1 acres. Planning Area III of the Land Use Plan proposed, within its boundaries, one underlying zone, Low Density Residential LDR — (RSP). A Residential Speci-fic Plan LDR-(RSP) overlay far Planning Area III is proposed to address res- idential supporting uses laud use within Planning Area ID with develapment MgL&ionu and cri- teria presented herein. The development criteria for open space, passive, and active recreation areas and other uses is delineated for Planning Area III herein. RESIDENTIAL SPIECIM PLAN (RSP) USES AND STANDARDS Tlie following section delineates the permitted land use and development standards for property designated as Low Density Residential Specific Plan. LDR - (RSP) on the Land Use Plan, within Planning Area. ill, A. Purpose and lr:tent. To provide for the development and regulation of a range of special- ized residential uses oriented to golf club and resort lifestyle activity, located in areas designated within Planning Area IIT in the Specific flan, Representative land use include residential owner- ship, short terns and long term rentals, and leasing uses as well as suppotting open space and recreational use. B. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses for land designated LDR - (RSP) on the Land Use Plan and/or Proposed Zoning exhrbits as LDR. - (RSP) includes all currently existing residential serv- ing oases and allowable uses delineated in the Low Density Residential district description of the La Quir" Zoning ordinance and as specified herein. Sales and marketing buildings and offices are allowed. C. Temporary & .Inferim Uses. Temporary or recurring outdoor event staging facilities and related uses serving the residential use and on-site construction and site guard offices including relocatable buildings. D. Accessory Use.fi Recreation and staging areas for recreation events, maintenance facilities and sites. Signs, fences and walls, subject to the design criteria set forth in this Specific Plan doc- ument Satellite dish and other antennas, subject to this Specific Plan. E. DtherAllowahle Uses. Water wells and pumping stations, water tanks and reservoirs, pub- lic flood control facilities and devices as necessary to facilitate the CVWD or developer in water management and conservation. Spooific Plan 03.067 3.9 583 F, Deve1qpmg?mS&Ad&rdK The Mowing developirrent standards apply It property proposed for development designated ci the Land Usc plan and/or imposed Zoning sxhibits as Low Density Residential LDR -- (RSP) and as described w"in' the text of this SpecFfio Flan, Standards etre established for Low Density Residential LDR — (RSP) buildings, structures and ruses within Plaun4 Area Iff. Residenfial DeUched a a d Attaebed Developmeat Standards Thm standards apply to all land vwi.tliiri Pla ing Area 10 as deucnW within, the text and graph - tics of #his Specific, plan. RIC Ig 0AISS N -A . ala%% " Nf= Building Height (Residence/Clubhouse) 28/ 35 fL* f max. No. of ftlies Min. Livable Floor Area Per Unit 1500 sglfl. Min. Front 'Yard Setback €torn: Street or Parking Stall Curb to A. Pe str Lii—cWation Waller 5 ft, QaragelCas xut Seth ok 5 It Min, Total Side Yard Setback 10 &** Mtn. LnteriarlExterior Side turd Setbacks S ft. Max. AIlo%able Wall Height 8 f1'.*** Max. Parking Reqtimd Per Current Code t Hdgiu i5 Rin itcd to 22.' Sot a se lhaek of 154' fNm 1L0_W_ em Mndisrnj & Aveaut SR. Golf clubhouse height allowed up to 35 *Not including eNmnq proertiom, bcV loiters, spires, MEG- ** AC >lniu, lte] U drmisols, pnks, and. spas we altiarcd to efi "AL into sidd and rear Desi MA sans_ **F 2' of the 8' X may be retaining wish G' fFMbt nd Ing. Tlie fbUowing use5 are perms ted in Planning Arca 11L L, Recreaflo r uses Outdoor lawn and recreation uses. Clubhouse, fitness center, and related uses Live enteriainmerrt as an accessary use to a "one-time" event. 2. �Ss?W-Fublic User Parks, play fwlds, botanical garden uses, and passive and active open space area. ,Bicycle, cart, and pedestdan trails_ Swimming pools and spas. 3. Lodging.ces Kesi&rrtaal use as delineated within [leis �mtion 3.1.3, 3JO pu ik. p1.,03-067 584 4, Accessory Dees Private parking lots, carports and open-air parking stalls as anaccessory use to residential uses, Signs in accordance with this Specific Plan- Antennas lan.Antennas and satellite dishes in accordance with this Specific Plan. Golf maintenance yard and related facilities. 5. Temporary & Intermit U.sas- Sales offices, construction and site guard offices in reiocatable or modular buildings.'* Interim event parking lots for events anticipated to extend over three os- more days of use,** Temporary outdoor event staging facilities. Temporary outdoor event staging facilities anticipated to extend over three or more days of use.** A single asterisk indicates an allowable use requiring al) praval of C.aruiitional Use Permirfrou) tf:e Lu Qrrhrly Planning Commhvion. *w A double asterisk indicates an allowable use on s temporary basis rephing aMawl front the La Qrr Ina C ointinurily Develolxrretrl Director. 01'FN SPACE LAND USE Open Space land in Planning Area III is defined by the areas adjacent to the residential units. Amenity and supporting facilities are located on adjacent fingers of greenbelt within the devel- opment plan and may be pools, fountains, spas, etc. Development criteria is defined herein. The foilowing development standards apply to the construction of buildings fur supporting residential unit and recreational features (such as satellite pool buildings) on property designated as Low Density Residential LDR -- (RSP)on the Land Use PIan. ANCQ.LARY BUILDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Ma.Y.Building Height 28 ft.*t Max. No. of Stories 1 Min. Setback from: Street or Parking Stall Curb 2 fl, Pedestrian Circulation WaWs 2 ft. Structure Setback S fl:. Min. Building to Building Setback, 5 fi. Min. Intl riodExterior Side Yard Setbacks to adjacent lot 10 fl. Maximum Allowable Screen Wall Height 10 ft. t Hciaeht is ]limited to 22' for a sethnk of 140' frorn R.Q.W. on Madison & Avenue 58, "Not including flgWles, chimney pmjcations, bell toners, spires, or blulding proicetions that nre nonessential to the functional space or the ooniniercial btulding (i,e. bell W%Y= etc.) spccific .Plan 03-067 3.11 585 3,1.4 Plawaing Area IV GOLF COURSE GC -(RSP) USES AND STANDARDS Description of Uses in Planning Area N Within the overall pian boundary, Planning Area IV encompasses development uses and standards for the Specific Plan 03-067 proposed Golf Course maintenance facility as well as ancillary sup- porting golf uses. This 3 acre Plarining Area is located at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 60 on the soutbern boundary of the project site. Planning Area IV of the Land Use Plan presently has, within its boundaries, one underlying zone, GC — (RSP). A Specific flan (RSP) overlay for Planning; Area IV is proposed to address golf course support- ing uses Land use within Planning Area IV with development regulation and criteria presented hexein. The development criteria for other uses is delineated for Planning Area I V herein, RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN (RSP) USES AND STANDARDS The following section delineates the permitted land use and development standards for property des- ignated as Golf Course Specific Plan GC — (RSP) on the Land Use flan, within Planning Area IV A. Purpose and Intern. To provide for the development and regulation of a range of special- ized maintenance uses oriented to golf course maintenance activity, located in areas designated within Planning; Area IV in.the Specific Plan. Representative land use include golf and open space maintenance building Use and supporting antcillary functions to that use. R. Perndtted Uses. Permitted uses for land desigoalW GC — (RSP) on the Land Use Plan and/or Proposed Zoning exhibits as GC— (RSP) includes all currently existing maintenance build- ing uilding serving uses and allowable uses dehueated in the Golf Course district description of the La Quinta Zordrig ordinance and as specified herein. C. Temporary & frtterim Uses. 'Temporary or recurring outdoor event staging facilities and related uses serving the, maintenance use, and on-site construction and site guard offices, and relo- catable buildings. D. Accessory Usex Fuel and supply storage incidental to the operations of the maintmmoe facil- ities and sites. Signs, fences and walls, subject to the design criteria set forth in this Specific Plain document as as required by law. Satellite dish and other antennas, subject to this Specific Plan. C. Other Allowable Uses. Water wells and pumping stations, water tanks and reservoirs, pub- lic flood control facilities and. devices as necessary to facilitate the CVWD or developer in water management and conservation. F. Devetop►r od Standards. The following development standards apply to properly proposed for development designated on the Land. Use Plan- and/or Proposed Zoning exhibits as Golf Course GC — (RSP) and as described within the text of this Spccific Plan. Standards are estab- lished for Golf Course GC — (RSP) buildings, structures and uses within Planning Area IV. 3.12 Specific Plan 03-067 586 BUILDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Max. Building Height 28 ft.*f Max. No. of Stories 1 Min. Front Yard Setback from Street or Parking Stall Curb 8 ft. Pedestrian Circulation Walks 5 ft, Garage/Carport Setback 5 f. Min. Total Side Yard Setback 10 ft" Min. Interior/Exterior Side Yard Setbacks 5 ft, Max. Allowable Wall Height 8 ii."`** Max. Parldng Required Per Current Code t Hoigirt is limited to 22' for u sctlwok of 1.50' from RO.W. on Madison & Avenue 58, •311ot uulndiug clunrncy projectiow, bell towers, spirts etc. »r ,4C Units, trellis alemcats, pools, and spas arc ailowved to encroach into side and rear setback areas. 'KO+2' of the 8' ht may be vaninutg n%Uh 6' freestanding. The following uses are permitted in Planning Area IV. Recreation Uses Outdoor lawn and recreation uses. 2. Semi Pudic Uses Maintenance building uses, and passive and active open space area. Swimming pools and spas. Special UeeS Fuel storage, fertilizer storage, and use incidental to maintenance building functions 4. Accessory lfsas Private parking lots, carports and open-air parking stalls as an accessory use to maintenance building uses. Signs in accordance with this Specific Plan. Antennas and satellite dishes in accordance with this Specific Plan. 5. Temporary & Interim Wes Site guard offices in relocatable or modular buildings.'" [nterirn event parking lots for events anticipated to extend over tluee or more days of use.** Temporary outdoor event staging facilities. Temporary outdoor event staging facilities anticipated to extend over three or more days of use.** ' A single asterisk indicates an allowable use requiring grproval of a Conditiorml flse Permit from the La Qiuinta Planning commission, "* A double asterisk indicates an allocable use on a temporary basis reyrfrrtrrg ap,p from rhe [a Jreirrla COmmirrritp Deryroprrrerrt Director: Specific flan 03-067 3.13 587 3,1.5 Planning Area V NEIGIMORHOOD COMMERCIAL NC -(RSP) USES AND STANDARDS Deseriplion of Usm in Planning Area V Within the overall plan boundary, PIanning Area. V encompasses development uses and standards for the Specific Plan 03-067 Neighborhood Commercial center as well as ancillary supporting uses. This Planning Area is looted at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 58 on the northern boundary of the project site. Planning Area V of the Land Use Plan proposed, within its boundaries, one underlying zone, NeighborhoodCOM mercial NC -(RSP) on 10 acres of land- Permitted andPermitted uses in the NC Zoning District will combine essential day -today neighborhood goods and services, tourism and visitor -based retail restaurant and linlited entertainment oppomnities,and facilities necessary for the operational demands of such ores. The following uses are permitted in Planning Area V with review of development proposals generally conforming to this Specific Plan and may require submittal of a Site Development Permit, Tempomry Use Permit, or other long or short term approval package at the discretion of the Community Development Department. NEIGHBORHOOD COMM] RCUL NC - (RSP) USES AND STANDARDS The following section delineates tho permitted land use and development smndards for property des- ignated as Neighborhood Commercial NC -(RSP) or? the Sand Use Plan, within Planning Area V. A. Purpose and Intent. To provide for the development and regulation of a range of special- ized neighborhood serving commercial and retail uses oriented to Golf club and resort lifestyle activity, located in areas designated within Planning Area V in the Specific Plan Representative land use includes neighborhood serving commercial and retail use and supporting ancillary func- tions to those uses. B. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses for land designated Neighborhood Commercial NC -(RSP) on the Land Use Plan and/or Proposed Zoning exhibits as Neighborhood Commercial NC -(RSP) includes all currently existing maintenance building serving uses and allowable uses delineated in the Golf Course district description of the La Quinta. Zoning ordinance And as specified herein. C. Temporary & Interim uses. Temporary or recurring outdoor event staging facilities and related uses serving the Cornmetcial use, on-site construction and site guard offices and relocat- able buildings. Temporary sales and marketing buildings and offices are allowed. D. Accessory Uses. Signs, fences and walls, subject to the design criteria set forth in this Specific Plan document as as rNuired by law. Satellite dish and other antennas, subject to this Specific Plan. 3.14 Specific Pian 03-067 588 C. Other Allowable Uses. Water wells and pumping stations, water tanks and reservoirs, pub- lic flood control facilities and dei ices as necessary to facilitate the CVWD or developer in water management and conservation. F. Development Standards; The following development standards apply to property proposed for development designated on the Land Use Plan and/or Proposed Zoning exhibits as Golf Course Neighborhood Commercial NC -(RSP) and as described within the text of this Specific Plan. Standards are established for Neighborhood Commercial NC — (R.SP) buildings, structures and uses within Planning Area V Neighborhood Commercial and Development Standards These standards apply to all land within Planning Area V as described within the teat and graph- ics. raphics of this Specific Plan. B13ILDING D=OME NT STANDARDS Maximum Structure Height 35 ft.* Maximum Number of Stories 2 Minimum Front Setback 10' Minimum Rear Setback 10' Minimum Parking 11250' GLA Maximurn Lot Coverage (I :A.R.) .25 ** Ttinimurn Building Setback to Avenue 58 25 fl. Minimum Building Setback to Madison Street 25 ft. Minimum Interior/Exterior Side Yard Setbacks 5/10 ft. Maximum Wall Height 10 ft. *Architectural and roof projections not providing habitable or otherwise unusable space,such as chimneys, spires, finials, and similar Features shall be permitted to extend up to ten feet above the maximum wucture. height. ** Maximum lot coverage for the West Tract shall be limited to 60,000 sf. The following uses are permitted in of Plaming Area V. 1. Retail Uses. Retail merchandise sales of limited goods (goods that can be, carried out by the customer), such as antiques, appliances, bicycles, wholesale and/or retail foods, newspaper and magazines, tobacco products, Idtchen and bath shops, video and audio equipment, clothing, pets and pet supplies, vffZce equipment and supplies, party and/or costume rentals, sporting goods, home furnishings, hardware and home improvement items, and other related items. 2. Public Uses. Restaurants and prepared food scrvice facilities including restaurants, deli- catessen, tea, coffee and ice cream shops, pizzerias, and similar uses. Prepare food sold specif- ically pecifically for on-site consumption, with indoorloutdoor seating. Such uses include tine dining and other low to medium turnover restaurant ; cocktail lounges, dinner clubs, sports bar/lounge, bar/gill, night clubs and similar uses, with alcohol sales for on-site consumption only, along with live, recorded or other entertainment in aT outdoors such as music and/or dancing, karaoke, arcade games, pool, billiard or shuffleboard tables, etc. Specific Plan 03-067 3.15 589 Special Uses. Professional service offices providing limited sales, such as niedical, dental, veterinary clinic, dietician, optician, catering, attorney, real estate, banking, mortgage broker, social and community service offices, property management, financial services, beautician, barber, reproduction service, tailor, cleaners and laundry, postal services, shoe, watch, jewelry and bicycle repair, and similar uses. Offices with larger scale service aspects, such as limousine and auto rental. Indoor or outdoor professional art studios, dis plays and/or galleries, for all artistic endeavors and production, to include Glance, painting, sculpting, ceramics, jewelry, glass blowing, photography, handmade furniture, stone cutting, and similar activities. There may be sales, presentations and displays or demonstrations to the public. 4. Accessory Uses Private parking lots, carports and open-air paring stalls as an accessory use to commercial building uses. Signs in accordance with this Specific Pian. Antennas and satellite dishes in accordance with this Specific Plan. Temporary & interim Uses Site guard offices in relocatable. or modular buildings.** Interim event parting lots for events anticipated to extend over three or more days of use. Temporary outdoor event staging facilities. Temporary outdoor event staging facilities anticipated to extend over three or more days of use. Oth(,rAllowable Else Public indoor assembly/entertainment facilities, such, as auditoriums, theaters, dinner theaters, conference center, gymnasium facilities, concert halls and related. use. Indoor facilities for education, training, self-help and improvernent, hobbies, orvocationai purpose, both ,public and private_ These may be located in any facilities Indoor/outdoor cultural., historic and similar displays and galleries for all types of artifacts and/or artistic media, such as museums, auction houses and consignment room. Such uses tray include sale of display art. pieces- * A single asterisk indicates an allowable use, racpdrir►g approwl of a Conditional Use Permit from the La Quinto Planning C.onumission. ** A double asterisk indicates an Aotvable ww on a tewporary basis requiring oppro+'al fwa fhe La Quinic? Cornnrrrrdty Davelonrnem Director. The permitted uses in Planning Area V do not preclude other similar uses which are com- patible with the specifically identified uses and otherwise meet the criteria for this Specific Plan and the currently approved Neighborhood CornrrmereW District within the La Quinta Zoning ordinance. Any determination on a. proposed use whether listed or unlisted herein may be either inter- nally reviewed by the Community Development Director or Planning Manager or referred to the Planning Commission as a non -hearing item if the Community Development Director or Plaaning Mazrager determines on a case-by-case basis that the public interest would be better served by such referral. 16 Specific Plan 03--067 590 3.1.6 Planning Area VI Golf Course GG�SP) USES AND STANDARDS Description of Uses in Planning Area VT Within the overall plan boundary, Planning Area VI encompasses 421 acres of development for the Specific Plan 03-067 proposed Golf Course as well as ancillary supporting uses. This Planning Area is located throughout the site. Planning Area VI of the Land Use Plan presently addresses 421 acres within its boundaries, one underlying zone, GC — (RSP). A Specific flan (RSP) overlay for Planning Area STI is proposed to address golf course support- ing uses land use within Planning Area V1 with development regulation and criteria presented herein. The development criteria for other use is delineated for Planning Area VI herein. RE, SIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN (RSP) USES AND STANDARDS The following section delineates the permitted land Use and development standards for property des- ignated as Golf Course Specific Plan GC — (RSP) on the Land Use Plan, within Planning Area V I. A. Purpose and Intent_ To provide for the development and regulation of a range of special- ized golf and open space uses oriented. to Golf club and resort recreation lifestyle and activity, located in areas designated within Planning Area VI inure Specific Plan. Representative land use include golf and open space use and supporting recreation functions to that use, B. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses for land designated GC — (RSP) on the Land Use Plan and/or Proposed Zoning exhibits as GC -- (RSP) includes all currently existing golf serving uses and allowable uses delineated in the Golf Course district description of the La Quinta Zoning ordinance and as specified herein. Sales and marketing buildings and offices are allowed, C. Temporary & Ittterins Uses. Tentpoeary or recurring outdoor event staging facilities and related uses serving the golf course use and on-site construction and site guard offices including relocatable buildings. D. Accessory Uses Limited food and beverage sales throughout the golf course area and accessory facilities (such as comfort stations and vonding booths) to that use. E. OtlterAllowable Uses. Water wells and pumping statioris, fluter tanks and reservoirs, pub - lie flood control facilities and devices as necessary to facilitate the CVWD or developer in water management and conservation. R Development Standards The following development standards apply to property proposed for development designated on the Land Use Plan. and/or Proposed Zoning exhibits as Golf Course Specific Plan 03-067 3.:1.7 591 GC -- (RSP) and as descnbed within the text of this Specific Plan, Standards are established for Golf Course LDR — (RSP) buildings, structures and uses within Planning Area Vi. Golf Course Building Standards These standards apply to all land within Planning Area VI as described within The text and graph- ics of this Specific Plan. BUILDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Max Building Height Olawl 28 $.*t Max. No. of Stories 2 Mira, Front Yard Setback from: Street or Parking Stall Curb 8 Pedestrian Cifculation Walks 5 Garage/Carport Setback 511. Min, Total Side Yard Setback to fl.** Min. Interior/Exterior Side Yard Setbacks 5 ft. M.ax. Allowable Wali Height 8 ft,*** Max. Parking Required Per Current Ordinance t Height is limircd ro .22' for a setback of 150' from RO.W, an Medi son & Avenue 5k, 414ot including chirmtiey projections, bell towers, spires, etc. *• AC Units, trellis elcineats, pools, and spas arc alto%ved ro tvcroactt into side and rear setback areas. *r 2' of ilic 8' hL may be retaining with b' freestanding. The following uses are permitted in Planning Area Vt. Recreation Uses Golf course use Pool/spa and water recreation uses. 2. 86mi Public Uses Maintenance building uses, and passive and Active opera space area. Parking facilities for employees of the development. 3. Special Uses Fuel storage, ferrtilizer storage, and use incidental to golf course operations 4. Accemory Usac Pr?vate parking lots, carports and open-air parking stalls as an accessory use to maintenance building uses. Signs in accordance with t% Specific Plan. Antennas and satellite dishes in accordance with this Specific Plan. Temporary & Interim Uses Site l uaxd offices in relocatable or modular buildings." 3.18 Specific Platt 03_067 592 Terrlporary outdoor event staging facilities related to golf operations Temporary outdoor event staging facilities anticipated to extend over three or more days of use.** " A single asterisk indicates an allowable Use requiringapproval of a Condiironal Use Pennii from the La Quinia planning Commission. " A double asterisk indicates an allowable use on a temporary basis requiring approval firam the La Qui2an Comm rrnr4, Dei+eloprueri Director: OPEN SPACE LAND USE Open Space Iand in Planning Area VI is defined by the areas adjacent to the Golf Course Supporting facilities are located on adjacent fingers of greenbelt within the development plan, The following development standards apply to the construction of buildings for supporting golf and residential features (such as restroom buildings) on property designated as Golf Course GC— (RSP)on G(RSP)on the Land Use Pian. ANCILLARY BUILDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Maxc. Building Height 14 f.* Max. No. of Stories 1 Mint. Setback frorn- Street or Parking Stall Curb 2 ft. Pedestrian Circulation Walks 2 ft. Structure Setback 0 ft. Min. Building to Building Setback 5 ft. Mn- Interior/Exterior Side Yard Setbacks to adjacent lot 0 ft, Maximum Allowable Screen. Wali Height 8 ft. *Not including buildingpmx cations that am noaassential to the fimctional space of the building {i.e% bell towm Ga.} which may cxtcnd an additional lb'ta height Specific Plan 03-067 3.19 593 3.2 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS Mnor modifications to the approved Specific Plan 03-067 are allowed at the discretion of the Community Development Director or Designee. Future modifications to the Specific Plan 03-067 mast be consistent with the purpose and intent of the current approved Coral Mountain Specific Pian Amendment. 3.2.1 Specific Pian Amendment Procedures Minor modifications to the approval Specific Plan 03-467 are allowed at the discretion of the Community Development Director or designee. A. Changes That Do Not Require Specific Plan Amendment As development within the Specific Plan 03-067 progresses, it may be demonstrated that certain detail changes are appropri- ate in refinement of the Specific Flan; therefore it is intended drat the Specific Plan Document provide flexibility with respect to the interpretation of the details of project development as well as those items discussed in general terms in the Specific Platt if and when it is determined that changes or adjustments are necessai3, or appropriate, these changes or adjustments sliall be made as an administrative procedure approved by the Community Development Director or designee. After such administrative change has been approval, it shall be attached to the Specific Plan as an addendum, and may be further changed and amended from time to time as necessary. Any such administrative changes do not require a Specific Plan amendment process. The following changes to the Specific Plan may be made without amending the Specific Plan 03-067: The transfer of divelling units from one planning area to another within a single planning area while maintaining the maximum overall Specific Plan dwelling unit number of units. The addition of new information to the Specific Plan maps or Next that do .not change the effect of any regulation. The new information may include more detailed, site-specific information. if this information demonstrates that Planning Area boundaries are inaccu- rately designated, based upon the goals of the Specific Plan, said boundaries may be adjusted to reflect a more accurate depiction of on-site conditions, without requiring a Specific Plan Amendment. Adjustments to the golf corridors may be made resulting in a corresponding change to the adjacent development parcel without the requirement of a specific plan amendment. • Changes to the community infrastructure such as drainage systems, roads, water and sewer systems, etc., which do not have the effect of increasing or decreasing capacity in the project area beyond the specified density range nor increase the backbone infrastruc- ture construction or maintenance costs. Changes That Require A Specific Plait. Airrendfnen4 If it has been determined that the proposed change is not in conformance with the intent of the current Specific Plan approval, the Specific Plan may be amended in accordance with the proce- dures set forth in Chapter 9.240 of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code. 3.20 Specific Plarz 03-062 594 3.3 DENSITY TRANSFER PROVISIONS The transfer of residential density from one Residential Planning Area to another Residential Planning Area within. the Specific Man 03-067 boundary is permitted based upon the provisions herein. Revisions to the Planning Area Statistical Summaries made in accordance with these pro- visions do not require an amendment to the specific Plan. Transfers of density may be approved to add or reduce tate number of units within a given Residential Planning Area up to but not exceeding 25% of the Target Units for each Planning Area. Residential density may be transferred from any Residential Planning Area, allowing residential development to any other Residential Planning Area allowing residential development regardless of Planning Area location or intensity residential land use category. Within the Planning Area receiving the transferred density, rhe Permitted density treed not be evenly disftibuted to all sub- divisions which comprise the "receiving" Planning Area. Application for Density Transfer shall be made in writing to the Community Development Director or designee and shall include the fol- lowing. Location of properties to be involved in the transfer including the Planning Area or other lot or district designations. The number of units to be transferred from one planned are to another. A calculation of acreage For each affected planning Area showing the current number of allow- able ur).its, the proposed number of allowable units for the effected Planning Areas, and, if the transfer is approved, the increase and decrease (expressed as a percentage of the previous approval unit count). ',Tire Community Developnreat Director or designee shalt approve the Density Transfer if the following conditions are met: The overall goals of the Specific Plan 03-067 as amended are maintained. The full range of housing stock remains available. Community facilities such as schools and parks can accommodate the additional units in the affected area. Infrastructure facilities such as roads, sewer, and water can accommodate the additional units in the affected area. proposed densities are compatible with existing City of La Quinta General flan Land Use desig• nations. Specifie Plan 03-067 3.21 595 General Plan Consistency alii~ornia Govemment Cade (Thio 7, Division i, Chapter 3, Article 8, cetiaa 65450 - 65457) permits the adoptiosi and admit station of sptcific plans res an imp?emcntation tool for eiements contained in the local general plan_ Specific. plans roust demomrate consistency in regulations, guidelines and programs with the goals and policies set fords in the general plan. The City of La Quanta 6eneW Plan wntsirs the follovAng olelnen#s; Land Ilse, CircWatiom, Open Space, Parks and Rezreation, EnviTonmend Conservalion, lnfrastrucunr- and Public Services, avis-onmenW iia=ds, Air Quality and Homing lEadi element of the General Flan c mtains a surwnLry of key ivats which direct and guide that element's goals and policies. The sLimmary of key issues is usO in the Sufic Plan 03-067 as the basis for cvahuating the peditc Plaar's consistency wi h the City's Genu] Plan, Appli<c Able key issues are stated below fo Mowed by a statement of cram, the prq ecr s Specific filar[ t -s amended conforms [hereto. 4.1 ANDALUSIA (EAST TRACT) GP CONSISTENCY 4.1.1 LAND [SSE ELEMENT Mainmining the City's low dewji , residential charade{ with a balance of supporting cornrrx oW a[td oommunity facilities_ The Land Use Plan of Specific Plait 03-067 clefig e.� rhe majority of fhes ,site as Low 1)ensdyRe5*krrtiu1 a: well cis Open Space and [tuff `tis[:. uPp+ r ire ,> c orrxrrt rcia perr:f is Plan h7 area' a facew to exiavn orupporthig itrfrasirucnnn The City enjoys a reputation az a desimble lorale. 'alta City's unique and attractive, characteae stems from a cambffi4vu of its environmental setting near the motmains, they "La uin(a" izztnge„_ 7-ne Developer ofthe Specific Plarr 03-067 Master Plat ei.V, yys a fautuYarlon of hosting nadonally recognized golf evontt capifail-ing on, and reinforcing, the City.s Unique sr:afing j&r champEtrwhip goff' recreation aad the notoriety thn Cornes with pmw er spor°tirrg evewr brrrandcasts wnrVct ide. As the Commeraial development eontintaes in the City, potential inwnnpatibilitieF, between land aces will netA to be; addressed, Visual, audible and vdoxifrerous impacts will have to be addressed thsortgh design, buffering, screening attd other mitigation techniques, ,Speck ,Plan 03-0674,5ig gates rhe mqi&r ky of the site a.s Low +Demity l ciderWal 42nd cha? pVw r,shV g�)ff arrwn tre-v Supporang and adjacant dayelopment is planned in u wmety of hergAls anal elavarfors m order to rrrir b:L-e the visual impact whila providing grofflZbeft s'cm� ens to neganv4�- off -property inf ueroax such as traffic no ase arta related lrxa pars s. Specific Plox 03-067 lik I 596 The [rend of walled resided subdivisioris rias resalwd uk many types of pedrueter waU Vcab=ft in time City, The design of blase wads and other elements of the stretscaW should be cooAND t d to create more of a continuo us appeamnoe thmughout the entire Mei-numly. Vie per'irrteter wall heatment sir erred for Specific Picui 03-067 esuzb14hee a consiver1 Mein* via and WWI awaftnenrs ai envisioned 0 the CO in l is ,iit�rer�z�ra1, Maintain the City's low d=d y residential characier with a balance ofsuppoddng commercial and nm -amity facilities. The Laird Uve Plan of the L te Plan 03-067 .Spat fic Plan desigrzales rhe majorzoi of the vile �s Lova Densily Reslden iaL Residential sw-ving conwwrcial dEvelopmenz wplamwel wkhrA the Neighborlwod C'ommer Od load wre of the .S) cif c flan. • Development should toot be allowed on hillsides nor alluvial tan ureas to protect the scenic resources of #lie City! The pMjoa boundary of S vcfic Plan 0.3-067 rs owside of the pristine hi[ Ades and alluvial. fart areas and themfore gwzeraW no bripcsct to these valuable resources. 4.1.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT Roadway d ssif=doas a tad design suandards should be based on current estirnatt�s of build -out reinerdng approved development pr-ciects. Development srandamx , of perim8ter roadumys are es'1ablhrhed in the Crenieral Plan C'ircrdation Blemens. ExiVing aM propmed roadway lmprovmonu b and around tha project boundary are based can cwgf estimates of bw( our and cxknsiaent i0lb the goals and policks established tri dw C; trcudarion Newm of fhb Crc'rreral Plum. Aliternative Dirculation system improvemznls need to be deveiap-d to relieve traffic c-ongestion along Washington Street Specific -Plan 03-067 abraslldadison andAftmon &me4 werake.vprimeny rdseconda?y acce vs fir i these roai&q .. fmpac,� to t as'binglun &refnr mire rrrinh7t(/I care to the ddstance frov; the project .site. Traffic impacts resulting fi•arn devi�inprnent should be identified thruugh a rnandattry train irnpa,ct analysis process- pevelupm(me projears at S ecifcPlan 03-067 ars sab eer eo rhes requh-ernenr esrablishCd in the I vvJoppui?v Revimi, Process de}bi ted in this Speg6c Peau elociana rt ars amended pedis dart and bicycle networks should be developed whit -b link audvity centers in erder to facilitate irixue, tional waiking and biking and to establish non-automotkt� transportation as a viable alternative, to ddviitg- Intemcd golf c�xq bicycle, and pedestrian aways is incorporwed in rhe Cimudation Pfau for Spedfic Pla); 03-W wrd rx acxorr mdated on IhE! existing andPIOrrrred r aadway syst ra. 4,.i, ,e.cifia Pian 03-067 597 - The circ Jo tia13 system should be designed ti roai itained fo encourage walking, bicyoling and transit utilization as alio=fives to avwrnobile travel, lmprovemeas to existing transit service, should be oansidered, iacluding provision of additional tmnsit stops on majoF road,.gays and covered Pius shelters €it alb-xisbng and fut= mops. - The devefoprneM along rhe perimeler of Specific Plan 03-067 desi aces locat3om fbr transit srupv and shelter=s. Tlra wer4al ci ulabon sy.stenrs p►+ornof s the rise ofgolf carts, pedeslrrun palhx and sirnal a as a meaty of iniphnizmg velncular time. 4.1.3 OPEN SPACE ELE E T Development on "dune ar s should he enitarr d to accentuate the sonic, topog raphical and cultural resources of the City. Although no areas of "ical dune lana thorn exist within the, ainended Spec f#c Plait boundmy, the ltandycape concept designates tie dune portions of Spec lc Plan 03-067 rr� a valuable resource to be integraled into the overall Mosier Plan of &VWJoP"erg in eirlt�r' lan fforrr) mam and topography or in plant malerial theme, Tlae Champio=hlp Goy. C'our%&,cs pkmved for construction will utilize varied and sfgatr cmpt topogr ophy fir an envh nmen(ally r-e,sponsib[e arra mer to c�are drrarnaric scenic resources. Open spare should b� dexzrcd to #nolu& 1911sidt, areas, alluvial Fans, water courses, golf courses, and natural park areas, natural, imptoved and unimproved types of open space should be included within the dcfwn doa, Lak s- and dramrxtic earrltrcaping are the predor7 mann landscape thetme- xhroughoul. epflc Plan 03-067 lanc0a ape archwaurs ac plamed and will he intograted into the averatt in=tt7 plan gradtrig concept. A-, a Bake to ft City's cultural past, elements of exisring citrus orchards, date palm groves and i'a3ming areas sboWd bi:,- preserve.I Specie Plant 03-167 will �aihze the su ca.sw of tine Rancho La Quiara landscape concept which established Cirrus "Grove -s " as a primary imaging therne in to ,snipe archaecrum Sindlarly. Date Palms will be usaas xhti printery veriicul statement at the errirypoWs to the projacl as well as wixhM lire houluvar'd frrnda eaps chem. Pe rmuted laud uses amd standards for developme,51 is uWii space and watercourse areas should be ideatified. Development Plan 03-067 are delineated in action 3. Zoning and Developwr !nt RAgulations, wUhin this docurnent err vp-loprnew in open .space and water rlourse or s. Specific Plan 03-067 4�3 598 4.1.4 PARR AND RECREATION ELEMENT Park and r=ea#inrw uses fhauld be located in proximity to residential uses to facilitate pedastrian aoci-ss and should inoIude the provision of appropriate facilities. TAA master plan j nr development wrIhN Spec{ ffc Plan 0,3-067 has, as a prlmary fo4ws, recreation amenifies.for goof tennis, and pax-vive walking wiehin the {+ra? fact ,rite. An mte a#ed bicyoie m1wcrik and %%4 fin Toning pedestrian p 4h system shoo] d be pro,,ided Bike park- c�r'e a pa mr? use of ilu: privace roadway system what Specific .li r* 03-067 with connecnolas to tine exating es'tahl4had nerwork rjf bike patkv on adlaw ci€-Wrinon links. Sewage effluont should be utilized for lame turf (i, e., golf course, active realrcmio ) areas and drought t6:xant plant species should be used to reduce the Lmpact on the potable water supply of the City. When econaini ady feasible. recycled warar .sou7ira ter e +isioned as- o source o irrigatiwx water fir t ele nano of the pfarr tea. D"Oughr m0"fraw plant mtrmrial i&' :r staple of the pale rre within th", glarw arca. 4.1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ELEMENT T • Scenic corridors, vistas and view sheds of the Sasha Rosa and Coral Rmf Mountains, as well as views toward the San Gorgonio Pass, shoWd be preserved and cnlsanced Utility resourccs shonid b� conserved utilizing a variety of fenjblO strafu-gaCS. Fac. )cfed wa.ov star will he utihzed at ,Specific Marr 03-967 to suppferrrent irrigatwN derrrands once economfafy available to minhPitag water' consrrrriptiorr_ The City should h -c protc�cked from ft advf-�rsc impacts of storm waw runoff, induding properLy damage as well as wafer quality. F e go ' courses tire A5, igned with "-irt5 widdn tike cc)rridors� to provida srorrm water retention ditrinrg floodin Permitted laid uses and standards fvr dpavdopment in opm space and wai=otwrse areas should be identified. Golf tOWSe use fecitures tfse inle r'WlOn Of 11+We17,5lred Z&na With open space and tyre designed withinthe conldors tri pwwde srorm cewurer m4enlion during. flooding, The quality and gaarttity of gr uidwatrr should be pmwcted and malnWnatl. Water conservation offarts should be mait.ained, expo Wtd and implemerwted. La&s wahin fhe gv f ems-, c, h .rrrdcojj pr wde for swage ofrun-&fb- use rn irrigcTdm 4.4 Specofio Plan 03-067 599 4.1.6 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMIE T Utility resources should be conserved u#slizing a variety effw0k strategies, All sirvehims are, buih to City 7oning and DeRveloprrmeW Code urtd C,k, wq3 brm huddin code .scan dards which implement a strate cif conserm ion elf energy xO resources, AdequsLW levels of law cn� Cement, fire protciioi4 health care services aad &cffities Should be provided in reasonable pr miry to City residents, The Speck .Plan 03-067 project contribidev to rafrastrxrawr- , feeps to rr ligate any rceived impact and provider addiriomd Aecwwy pers-orwel thereby reducing the *equirea M-anpo)ver fns m Me. Czry lox ernforcerr e servfc�s. 'Rue -recycling, reduction and reuse ofwasm genwaled in the City should be skippo3ted by the City. A)l m-xrctuMV are built to City Zomqg and Development Cede and (he uni(b)- rr building e standards which implemni a ;5D zaegy of corrcerma ion of energy nd resour , 1` n queat collection of solid waste and adequatt disposal should be provided to keep the Cit aleaa and disease-free, The Spec4fic Plrin 03-O67 prq) ct cona-ibuta (c) it xrvtrucfttrse fess io Migigare any p4soveived pvpact 4.1.7 I NVURO MENTAL IFIAZARIDS ELEMENT The standards for &%,telopmert should be carefully regulated #o minimi= structural damage ,and lass of life (from earthquw-kes), even though ktre City is focated in a law immensity ground- Olaking zone. A11 strucswm are bunt to 0 Zoning and Development {Carle and the uniform building c"cle sOrmilardc wNch implemant a strategy of comge-r nlion of energy and msrrurcec. The &velopmcttt of areas located within IDO-y r floodplain boundaries and not protected by existing storm water factlitia5 should be addressed - All sn-uclures are built to City Zoning and Devedopmenr C'rrda and the uniform building code standaids• which ifrfplerrierrr a strategy of conservation cf energy arra r&Wurcss. &Adence hazards for the eamte n poTfion of the City dire to its local on within a region a uackeTized by polenha] sail litludadon during semegmuxid shaking should be roduced if possible, X111 st wrArrer ars built to City Zon&qq and Davelopmenr Cods and the ma ovm b uddi X& standards which implemem a strategy of eorrsetwtkrt qfuner& caret m,"xw- 51300ifiG PJew p3,067 4..5 .I� Nano a ruidgatioia should he cansidered with ail developr ont near Sited a] st ts. Sabnc -. fr'orrt adjacent arterkily are )iequirEd by City devOqpvjew regulation. A noime vudy }urs' been prepared for deveJopmanr adjacent to rt mricrls and oVher developmanr ors r u;red by I& City of l u Cher r: Dsvd rpPnew Department • Thr {kiwis that comribute to ft iticreased risk of "ire hazard should be redurA to prOft'd La uiirm citizns and maures frol3x fire damage, All structures are built to City Zaning and Derreloprrrml Code and the mifor m building c'Od* ,starmunis whi implamerrl a stralegi of wnservonon of unP.rgy and re,4ourca- 4.1.8 ,SIR QUALITY ELEMENT <k 6 The mationary and mobile scnirfce of air quality impcfs associated w ih new development should be addressed. An arwl sis r theAit Quality frac beerprepwed err confaanctran with rhe pmviowb�nec Plan asuendment W. All perceived imrpuco associraed with this pr jecr praposaI will he mitigated to a leW of rmrgn f+eance- • rite Apploantshedl utilize blow sand and dust control measures in accordance with the Uconic a( Code and the 11ni orm Building- Cadie and.subjea to rite approved of the City Engineer Part'i'cular care shall he exercised durbig periods of exfjvam mind a<ctivr(t • 4rr. analyso ofthe Ah, Quality hers bem prrcpmud in corrjr ction -Wilk the prxrvkous pecifPc 1 kin mme ndmear W I, rf if percetrfied impacts assaclated with tris prrrjectl rxxpo,s a will be rrtifigated 10 a level of rnstgn?ficancc- At tine time of subnattal of tertmatee tract reaps or plant for cuiy .rotting Vproval the pplicaul ,stroll u'ewror vtrx to that adequ= pry vivion {las been made for aoff-aulotr fgwe mectw of twnsportallon within the; pmjact .site as a rrrearrs r?f rectucrrrg dgpendence on prrotate cr iomwbifcs. 7hrx way imhak golf' cy rt push systems, bic ck ami pedestrian sysl'emv, and other shniiur .9weam- cunsivcnl with the specific plata. Sgeei lc project dcsl a Mall enccrrrrage the use of public lramil b]r providing for bits stops ctr mquimd by the Commrrrrify DmQlopment Director athd con.vLamr wide the rr..Tvr -emcmu of local h-arrsil districts arra` rhe specifxpla'rr, • Th4, Appleanl Marl( encourage and support the ure of Sumbne Ucrr hzu service and Dial A-Rfde between The pmjecl site, focal airports (e.., Palmi Speings. n(rFMaV and o:tier• reg funal land uga. Spediv Nn13 03-067 601 4.2 CORAL MOUNTAIN CLUB (WEST TRACT) GP CONSISTENCY Policy Analysis for the West side of the Project is based on the 2035 City of La Quinta General Plan. California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section 65450 - 65457) permits the adoption and administration of specific plans as an implementation tool for elements contained in the local general plan. Specific plans must demonstrate consistency in regulations, guidelines and programs with the goals and policies set forth in the general plan. This section analyzes the consistency between this Specific Plan and the La Quinta General Plan 2035. The City of La Quinta General Plan 2035 contains the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Livable Community, Economic Development, Parks, Recreation and Trails; Housing; Air Quality; Energy and Mineral Resources; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Water Resources; Open Space and Conservation; Noise; Soils and Geology; Flooding and Hydrology; and Hazardous Materials. Each element of the General Plan 2035 contains a summary of goals which reflect the City's values, aims, and aspirations. They also address the physical development of the City, the protection of people and property from man- made hazards, and the preservation of the City's assets. This amendment to the La Quinta General Plan will facilitate a Specific Plan Amendment adjusting the amount and configuration of previously approved residential, golf course and commercial land uses within a private residential community. The amendment consistent with General Plan policy as outlined in the following sections. Each element's relevant goals are used in the Specific Plan as the basis for evaluating the Specific Plan's consistency with the City's General Plan 2035. Applicable goals are stated below followed by a statement of how the Specific Plan as amended conforms thereto. 4.2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT Land use compatibility throughout the City. The site components are not changing. They were and continue to be compatible with surrounding residential, open space, and neighborhood commercial uses that characterize other gated residential in the vicinity. The project is separated from adjacent uses by surrounding arterial streets and physical topographic barriers, such as Coral Mountain. Off-site development impacts are anticipated to be minimal. High quality design that complements and enhances the City. The project includes detailed design guidelines in Section 2.8 to guide high-quality development throughout the project area. The high-quality design, amenities, and mix of land uses on the site will work to help create a high-quality residential project that will complement existing land uses in the area and enhance the character of the City. A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City. • The project proposes high-quality housing of varying types and sizes with access to resort and recreational amenities, thus enhancing housing choice for potential buyers. Specific Plan 03-067 602 The project allows for various housing products within the project. Planning Area III designated as Low Density Residential, anticipates detached or attached residential product types with densities up to 4 dwelling units per acre. A balanced and varied economic base which provides a broad range of goods and services to the City's residents and the region. The project includes both neighborhood commercial land uses which will generate revenue and create employment opportunities. The proposed project would increase neighborhood commercial services in an underserved area. 4.2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT A transportation and circulation network that efficiently, safely and economically moves people, vehicles, and goods using facilities that meet the current demands and projected needs of the City. The project proposes a private circulation system to provide safe and efficient passage for pedestrians and motorists throughout the site. The project proposes to build out Madison Street, Ave 58 and Ave 60 to ultimate standards per the General Plan. A circulation system that promotes and enhances transit, alternative vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian networks. The project proposes a private circulation system with low -speed, low-volume internal streets that will safely accommodate both vehicles and pedestrians. 4.2.3 LIVABLE COMMUNITY ELEMENT A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. The project includes elements to address the goal of the Livable Community Element, which generally is intended to assist the City in developing a more united community through resource conservation, built environment enhancement, promotion of alternative forms of transportation, and improvement of community health. The project is consistent with this goal by promoting a high-quality mix of uses residential community that will greatly enhance the built environment, will promote walkability, and provide ample opportunities for active recreation. 4.2.4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT A balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City, and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the region. Specific Plan 03-067 603 The project promotes a balanced and varied economic base for the City by accommodating a neighborhood commercial center. Additionally, the residential use will incrementally increase demand for commercial goods and services in the region, thus enhancing the economy. The continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in the City. The project promotes the continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in La Quinta by creating a high quality residential community designed to accommodate short term vacation rentals to house new residents and visitors. 4.2.5 PARKS, RECREATION AND TRAILS ELEMENT A comprehensive system of parks, and recreation facilities and services that meet the active and passive needs of all residents and visitors. The project designates areas set aside for golf coursemopen space uses that will provide recreational opportunities for residents of the community. 4.2.6 HOUSING ELEMENT Provide housing opportunities that meet the diverse needs of the City's existing and projected population. The project anticipates the development of residential housing at densities up to 4 dwelling units per acre, thus contributing to the City's market rate housing stock. Conserve and improve the quality of existing La Quinta neighborhoods and individual properties. The project will complement the surrounding residential communities with neighborhood commercial, recreational open space, and residential uses that are consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods in the vicinity. Provide a regulatory framework that facilitates and encourages energy and water conservation through sustainable site planning, project design, and green technologies and building materials. The project promotes water conservation through the use of drought tolerant plant materials and water efficient irrigation techniques. The project will comply with all City and water district regulations and building codes for water conservation, energy efficiency, and building standards. The project will also comply with all applicable green building requirements. 4.2.7 WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT The efficient use and conservation of the City's water resources. The project promotes water conservation through the use of drought tolerant plant materials and water efficient irrigation techniques. The project will comply with all Specific Plan 03-067 604 City and Coachella Valley Water District regulations and building codes for water conservation. 4.2.8 OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT Preservation, conservation and management of the City's open space lands and scenic resources for enhanced recreational, environmental and economic purposes. The project includes significant open space amenities. It retains the slopes of Coral Mountain without disturbance and includes a golf -based recreational amenity for use by community residents and guests. The project incorporates connections to the public sidewalk and public trail system for convenient walking, jogging, and biking activities. 4.2.9 NOISE ELEMENT A healthful noise environment which complements the City's residential and resort character. The project establishes standard residential, golf, and neighborhood commercial uses with noise levels identical to existing gated resort communities in the area. All uses will be subject to the City's noise ordinance. Noise levels on Avenue 58 and Madison Street are not excessive and the project is buffered by a perimeter community wall. Specific Plan 03-067 605 PLANNING QOMMISSION RFSOLUTION 2024- TENTATIVqTRACT MAP 2023-0005 (37815) AREREVunONS i� •�F, LR�em A, mwc arnx,• M .. ItFxaOcac • �rwwy±�,tw sx= d sdr w eRr INTHECITYOFLA QUINTA,COUNSY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXH I BIT D TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37815 FOR FINANCING PURPOSES r---r--------ry------T------•-1 — I 'k2• ` - ULTIMAIE,R/W (40 FROM CL) I DATA TABLE ._-- F- — ._ — ye I EX. R/W (30' FROM CLI wroavea NgnRayR Rn�T..E P[¢'EICS OF�ri�=AC=�LMN\G _ _ _ _ I F 12 O4D.M MUu:E: COLOR?OD EC±O±. � ,• Hev°3ror'E 7TDsa' — — - — A zimxrNi:r:�st Du.:ILr s,w¢ave, lrx _ VYI WLS}�Y ia'AItM I]SIXC:I NM 4.?i:r.0.] (— cros EnR, �A1S0.Rry ______ ------ t:q - ,-_ _______ I —$TREE C(L I AEbII w,sn rr RROR9T ]n.�1,3 F:P CpLYE s .x �;�+r•-tiil!?="�;9� I I l'vE:,�LxE;Ev;7�a'L- D.f<R� 1111 NA,ro a.�NOYrY: ,- I+I'J y L — — — — — — J AODE 'JNLIOh a': EULE. Sk IE'M' E � .� I /�,•i DETAIL C(N.1.2) 6 MEE oeTarxsOetTfD: Tell ... ip — — — — — — — — ------------------ -� A/9iS4[S rnR<a.w.RHe nno`.•nn�..rnnnalcnlrnwxnr..ro.;r..vnmsArn,,ie:u:a, S''.S.Jr ,t•_iX'' � I.--. .. I. aenlwl.a.. R} - .• _ T - WRICti V[it::•rHOY•xi3'C'w�AYiS'JlTkY'rrRK I.Y C2r !: i xk 'I L--------3�--- --Lori----�t—_nlcv�rxlror.rr.rsmr..noN •,! DETAIL A(N.I.SI CSIve:IFalrtuul eU! rWSr'.h' n r',� L Lau 77 11 .F __ '� Z 1,-1 as•n'.u•N, Nw05'53"f I -'Ex.e.YE.FDLNDAL, r¢Droso l.nr, la.n.zr er>oeur:..l rmrouxo-sruuL een — I-LILt +I -L w.nlxsa I¢LnN,ArL.;.,—. I LAA ar:n I oUS 1 1 FxlmnccENNERAl IUuu FEENN�eNma .N.Neufe vD -- - - - - - - --- I - ji+l - ----- II a I I I �+L'IfIPoA.[✓s[OwnNY RIw 3,,„RR� ' , n.. II � I I I I ,:LD`nvRi tvntii=CMr,LNLrtlOIe NAkr ex•.k;�,rvu,W ww �N�I I ! r I �� w�FRDb N� rNwntc�>�I/JIEO.I. II I ' ' A. I ✓° YFn R �i56..E ^''IS -C !vim -. (J^'� S — C E DOC R C �'t ti LOT7 - DETAIL R(N.T.S.) Q NM 100 SIFT =1-� UNLS.'A. pn CtiOWF47e cr L[ Ee Di ' e[-�vt;;u ii<`Icu t._s�cTiivrixiv '• :.rx,.:va Jxnrecr...INr, �mr.wnNwt•Rr.;. - :n vfliiin [T',�,•.�_.._ ;•.��. l ,�Al ..:,n :'_,a„I �nnl-i`:'al"'N�`':r'.��M"w rD.:�nu�r �n_.<I; gT >C reE. nvoomle aeDeuwN e �[�� r'9 . •` �-- N'^x `":on[-,'-.x[..o-..•.InII..Ln_oovr,-A. ..>: nrt)uctonowtN • �� ` /� r r.-.� -_ LmWs.y snrnao„tr;rrNul:aLy.,nlr.c,vucxn A. nonu wale:.n::e v,rtr,.:,rs .1a D:N.A[i RRA Jr]uYA_NUni(N:S: , LOT 4 ` _ K c IRr.<rnnc;u�rarlxxslm•r n... r_ .. a�o,ewlu ac ��-.ass Lrx'.ilDNs wlDaue:L oxnlMa..N, xlw I �F �.. ......._ ., ... r ..-...... . .+r Rn�T..E P[¢'EICS OF�ri�=AC=�LMN\G RR —EAlLE fX7 NL`}IRIL � _ _ � ,• SRE zimxrNi:r:�st Du.:ILr s,w¢ave, lrx _ VYI WLS}�Y ia'AItM I]SIXC:I NM 4.?i:r.0.] .- nFrwxer. Ef0•�k w ; � i crn nJ.1tU3E.. U. t I I L _ .0 q rr.rvnl�al 'Al nuN..n .r..n Rltr .,A• � e,lcDrcn DIFY•.e`t JN .>rtxrnuu Aw •vrQ::.nu�[iii:�i N LAhJ+w Aut.41/t.. "f. Y+.Y:f •la.D:. ILI .wt I • 6 •� PURFOi[! A: r,6E:NFD In OOC!nEM REC.?ii:Ci3?I � FIV IW.\FYL'M1OMIw: R+1Wl.E5 [LaNaRIY:. •wrc t�iryl tOra tLc f`eY lY],FTAN.:Io' ,uYxl! IrsRl; l+�^ C2r !: A uvt .':E Y•r m.n Lll0.Ll-NI L x .. .. ... uD•i"nN• i, niln'nr..r °Rr::inT L 77 [T',�,•.�_.._ ;•.��. l ,�Al ..:,n :'_,a„I �nnl-i`:'al"'N�`':r'.��M"w rD.:�nu�r �n_.<I; gT >C reE. nvoomle aeDeuwN e �[�� r'9 . •` �-- N'^x `":on[-,'-.x[..o-..•.InII..Ln_oovr,-A. ..>: nrt)uctonowtN • �� ` /� r r.-.� -_ LmWs.y snrnao„tr;rrNul:aLy.,nlr.c,vucxn A. nonu wale:.n::e v,rtr,.:,rs .1a D:N.A[i RRA Jr]uYA_NUni(N:S: , LOT 4 ` _ K c IRr.<rnnc;u�rarlxxslm•r n... r_ .. a�o,ewlu ac ��-.ass Lrx'.ilDNs wlDaue:L oxnlMa..N, xlw N. EE Q �F �.. ......._ ., ... r ..-...... . .+r AVENUE SA • yI- N EE - — -o —EAlLE fX7 NL`}IRIL � _ _ � ,• SRE Ef0•�k w ; � i Liz •� ��.\', 11 i I ---- 1 -- - - - - - - --- I - ji+l - ----- ---- --- 09YAILC N. EE Q �F �.. ......._ ., ... r ..-...... . .+r AVENUE SA • yI- N EE .a 1111 e f _ . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ._ .. . .... YICI .... ..I.3 ¢0150 y3TwD I --.,s cro.N SRE I MSA CdNSULTING. I'-,' I EET -11 }I..;R, .Ilx✓.v , 606 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: City Clerk Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use (Exempt from Recording Fee per Gov't Code §6103 and §27383) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT LLC r: EXHIBIT E 607 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into as of the _ day of , 2024 ("Reference Date"), by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation and charter city organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of the California ("City"), and CM Wave Development LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Developer"), with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. Government Code Section 65864 et seq. ("Development Agreement Act") authorizes City to enter into a binding development agreement for the development of real property within its jurisdiction with persons having legal or equitable interest in such real property. B. Pursuant to Section 65865 of the Government Code, City has adopted its Development Agreement Ordinance (La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.250.030) establishing procedures and requirements for such development agreements ("Development Agreement Ordinance"). C. Developer owns certain real property, consisting of approximately 386 acres, located south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, and west of Madison Street, in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and shown on the Site Map attached hereto as Exhibit `B" (the "Site"); and Developer has proposed to develop a master -planned residential community with up to 750 homes, an 18 -hole golf course and other open space and private recreational amenities, , and up to 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses (collectively, the "Project"). The Project is more fully described in, and subject to (i) this Agreement, (ii) the Andalusia Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. SP 03-067), as amended by Amendment No. 5 ("Specific Plan"); (iii) the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project, approved and certified by the City Council on , by City Council Resolution No. (the "EIR"); (iv) General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2023- ; (v) Zone Change No. ZC 2023- ; (vi) Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 2023- , and (vii) any future discretionary or ministerial approvals and/or permits issued for the Project (collectively, the "Project Site Development Permits"); (viii) any future subdivision maps approved for the Project (collectively, the "Future Tract Maps"); and (ix) the conditions of approval associated with each and all of the foregoing approvals (collectively, the "Conditions of Approval"). The documents, permits, approvals, and conditions described in the foregoing clauses (i) -(ix) are collectively referred to herein as the "Project Approvals," and are, or when approved or issued shall be, on file with the City Clerk. D. The Project and the Site constitute and affect only a portion of the property subject to Specific Plan No. SP 03-067, and neither this Agreement nor any other aspect of the Project Approvals shall impose any conditions, restrictions, or mitigation measures on the other portion of property subject to Specific Plan No. SP 03-067 located on the east side of Madison Street (the "Andalusia Country Club Project"). E. Developer owns fee simple title to the Site, and by their execution of this Agreement, City and Developer consent to recordation of this Agreement against the Site. -1- M: F. Consistent with Section 9.250.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, City and Developer desire to enter into a binding agreement that shall be construed as a development agreement within the meaning of the Development Agreement Act. This Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning for and secure the orderly development of the Project, ensure a desirable and functional community environment, provide effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure, and services appropriate for the development of the Project, and assure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within the City, by achieving the goals and purposes of the Development Agreement Act. In exchange for these benefits to City, Developer desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with development of the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Project Approvals, all as more particularly set forth herein. G. The Planning Commission and the City Council have determined that the Project and this Agreement are consistent with the City's General Plan and the Specific Plan, including the goals and objectives thereof. H. All actions taken by City have been duly taken in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, including the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA"), and all other requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes and other procedural matters. I. On , 2024, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. approving this Agreement. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, which are incorporated herein by this reference, the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby agree as follows: GENERAL 1.1 Definitions. In addition to the defined words and terms set forth elsewhere in this Agreement, the following defined words and terms shall apply: 1.1.1 "Administrative Adjustment" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.2. 10 of this Agreement. 1.1.2 "Affiliated Party" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.8.3 of this Agreement. 1.1.3 "Agreement" means this Development Agreement and all amendments and modifications thereto. 1.1.4 "Annual Mitigation Payment Date" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.6.2 of this Agreement. -2- 0• 1.1.5 "Applicable Rules" means the following rules, regulations, ordinances and officially adopted policies of the City of La Quinta in full force and effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement: the City's General Plan (as amended by GPA 2023-__), the Zoning Ordinance (as amended by Zone Change 2023-__), and the Specific Plan. Additionally, notwithstanding the language of this Section or any other language in this Agreement, all specifications, standards and policies regarding the design and construction of public works facilities, if any, shall be those that are in effect at the time the Project plans are being processed for approval and/or under construction. 1.1.6 "Assignment and Assumption Agreement" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.8.1 of this Agreement. 1.1.7 "CC&Rs" means the Declaration(s) of Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions, recorded against all or a portion of the Site, as set forth in Section 3.8 of this Agreement. 1.1.8 "CDFW" means the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a state agency. 1.1.9 "CEQA" means the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs., Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). 1.1.10 "City" means the City of La Quinta, a charter city and municipal corporation, including each and every agency, department, board, commission, authority, employee, and/or official acting under the authority of the City, including without limitation the City Council and the Planning Commission. 1.1.11 "City Council" means the City Council of the City and the legislative body of the City pursuant to California Government Code Section 65867. 1.1.12 "Conditions of Approval" shall have the meaning set forth in Recital C. 1.1.13 "Coral Mountain Annual Mitigation Fee" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.6.2 of this Agreement. The Coral Mountain Annual Mitigation Fee may also be referred to as the "Coral Mountain Residential Unit Fee". 1.1.14 "CVMSHCP" means the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program, as described in the EIR and as approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife with issuance of a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Permit on September 9, 2008, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the issuance of the final permit on October 1, 2008, for the CVMSHCP. 1.1.15 "Development Director" means the Design and Development Director for the City or designee. 1.1.16 "Developer" has the same meaning as in the preamble to this Agreement. -3- 610 1.1.17 "Development Agreement Act" means Section 65864 et seq., of the California Government Code. 1.1.18 "Discretionary Action" means an action which requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation or a decision on the part of City, including any board, commission, committee, or department or any officer or employee thereof, in the process of approving or disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from an activity which merely requires City, including any board, commission or department or any officer or employee thereof, to determine whether there has been compliance with statutes, ordinances, regulations, or other adopted policies. 1.1.19 "Discretionary Permits" means any permits, approvals, plans, Future Tract Maps, inspections, certificates, documents, and licenses that require a Discretionary Action, including, without limitation, site development permits, grading permits, stockpile permits, and encroachment permits. 1.1.20 "Effective Date" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.3 of this Agreement. 1.1.21 "Environmental Impact Report" or "EIR" shall have the meaning set forth in Recital C of this Agreement. Agreement. 1.1.22 "Finance District" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.4 of this 1. 1.23 "Future Tract Maps" shall have the meaning set forth in Recital C. 1. 1.24 "General Plan" means the General Plan of the City. 1.1.25 "Impact Fees" means impact fees, linkage fees, exactions, assessments or fair share charges or other similar impact fees or charges imposed on and in connection with new development by City. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, none of the following shall constitute Impact Fees: (i) Processing Fees, (ii) impact fees, linkage fees, exactions, assessments or fair share charges or other similar fees or charges imposed by other governmental entities and which City is required to collect or assess pursuant to applicable law, including, without limitation, school district impact fees pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, fees required pursuant to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee, or (c) other City-wide fees or charges of general applicability, provided that such City-wide fees or charges are not imposed as an impact fee on new development. 1.1.26 "Insubstantial Modification' shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6(a) of this Agreement. 1. 1.27 "Ministerial Permits and Approvals" means the permits, approvals, plans, inspections, certificates, documents, licenses, and all other actions required to be taken by City in order for Developer to implement, develop and construct the Project and the Mitigation Measures, including without limitation, building permits, foundation permits, and other similar permits and approvals which are required by the La Quinta Municipal Code and Project plans and 13 611 other actions required by the Project Approvals to implement the Project and the Mitigation Measures. Ministerial Permits and Approvals shall not include any Discretionary Actions or Discretionary Permits. 1.1.28 "Mitigation Measures" means the mitigation measures described in the EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved and adopted for the Project. 1. 1.29 "New Laws" means amendments or modifications to the Applicable Rules, and all ordinances, resolutions, initiatives, regulations, rules, laws, plans, policies, and guidelines of the City and its City Council, Planning Commission, and all other City boards, commissions, departments, agencies, and committees enacted or adopted after the Effective Date. 1.1.30 "Non -Assuming Transferee" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.8.2 of this Agreement. 1. 1.31 "Operative Year" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.6.2 of this Agreement. 1.1.32 "Parties" means collectively Developer and City. Each shall be referred to in the singular as a "Party". 1.1.33 "Planning Area" shall mean an area designated on the Site Map as a planning area. 1.1.34 "Planning Commission" means the City Planning Commission and the planning agency of the City pursuant to California Government Code Section 65867. 1.1.35 "Processing Fees" means all processing fees and charges required by City to cover the City's cost of processing permits and other land use entitlements and conducing the associated inspections, including, but not limited to, fees for filing land use applications, plan check fees, inspection fees, and other processing or administrative fees. Processing Fees shall not include Impact Fees. The amount of the Processing Fees to be applied in connection with the development of the Project shall be the amount which is in effect on a City-wide basis at the time an application for the City action is made. Notwithstanding the language of this Section or any other language in this Agreement, Developer shall not be exempt from the payment of fees, if any, imposed on a City-wide basis as part of City's program for storm water pollution abatement mandated by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and subsequent amendments thereto, unless a waiver of these fees is provided by City in a subsequent agreement. Section 3.1. Agreement. 1.1.36 "Project" means development of the Site as set forth in more detail in 1.1.37 "Project Approvals" shall have the meaning set forth in Recital C. 1.1.38 "Public Facilities" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.4 of this -5- 612 1.1.39 "Reserved Powers" means the rights and authority excepted from this Agreement's restrictions on City's police powers and which are instead reserved to City, its City Council, Planning Commission, and all other City boards, commissions, departments, agencies, and committees. The Reserved Powers include the powers to enact or adopt New Laws or take future Discretionary Actions after the Effective Date of this Agreement that may be in conflict with the Applicable Rules and Project Approvals, except such New Laws which would prevent, or materially impair Developer's ability to develop the Project in accordance with the Project Approvals; provided, however, that with respect to such New Laws which would conflict with this Agreement or prevent, or materially impair Developer's ability to develop the Project in accordance with the Project Approvals, such New Laws shall apply to the Project only if such New Laws are: (1) necessary to protect the public health and safety, and are generally applicable on a City-wide basis (except in the event of natural disasters as found by the City Council such as floods, earthquakes and similar acts of God, which shall apply even if not applicable on a City- wide basis); (2) amendments to Uniform Codes, as adopted by City, and/or the La Quinta Municipal Code, as applicable, regarding the construction, engineering and design standards for private and public improvements to be constructed on the Site; (3) required by a non -City governmental entity to be adopted by or applied by the City (or, if adoption is optional, the failure to adopt or apply such non -City law or regulation would cause the City to sustain a significant loss of funds or loss of access to significant funding or other resources), or (4) necessary to comply with state or federal laws and regulations (whether enacted previous or subsequent to the Effective Date of this Agreement). 1. 1.40 "Schedule of Performance And Phasing Plan" means the schedule for the development of the Project as set forth in Exhibit "H" attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. 1. 1.41 "Short -Term Vacation Rental(s) Regulations" means Chapter 3.25 (or successor chapter) of the La Quinta Municipal Code that governs the application, permitting, renewal, use, operation, penalties, and other provisions relating to short-term vacation rentals in the City, in effect at the time during the Term of this Agreement, except to the extent any provision in Chapter 3.25 directly conflicts with the rights vested as set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement. 1.1.42 "Site" means approximately 386 acres of real property located south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, and west of Madison Street, in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California. The Site is legally described in the Site Legal Description and depicted in the Site Map., attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively. 1.1.43 "Site Development Plan" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 9.180.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 1. 1.44 "Site Legal Description" shall mean the legal description of the Site as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.1.45 "Site Map" means the map of the Site and immediately adjacent properties, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. 1. 1.46 "Specific Plan" shall have the meaning as set forth in Recital C. INI 613 1. 1.47 "Term" means the period of time for which the Agreement shall be effective in accordance with Section 1.2 herein. 1. 1.48 "TOT" means Transient Occupancy Tax levied by the City, in accordance with Chapter 3.24 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and applicable state law, and deposited into the City's general fund after remittance by all operators (or other entities or individuals) subject to the tax. 1. 1.49 "Transferee" means individually or collectively, Developer's successors in interest, assignees or transferees of all or any portion of the Site. 1.1.50 "Uniform Codes" means those building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire and other similar regulations of a City-wide scope which are based on recommendations of a multi -state professional organization and become applicable throughout the City, such as, but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Electrical Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, or the Uniform Fire Code (including those amendments to the promulgated uniform codes which reflect local modification to implement the published recommendations of the multi -state organization and which are applicable City-wide). 1.1.51 "Vesting Date" means the later of (i) the Effective Date of this Agreement, and (ii) the running of all applicable statute of limitations and referendum petition deadlines to challenge the Project Approvals with no legal challenge or petition having been filed or submitted, or if filed or submitted, successfully resolved to the satisfaction of Developer and City. 1. 1.52 "Zoning Ordinance" means Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 1.2 Term. k The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for fifty (50) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise terminated, modified, or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the Parties after the satisfaction of all applicable public hearing and related procedural requirements. 1.3 Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective, and the obligations of the Parties hereunder shall be effective, as of ("Effective Date"), which is the date that Ordinance No. takes effect. 1.4 Statement of Benefits and Consideration. The Parties have determined that a development agreement is appropriate for the construction and operation of the Project due to the substantial benefits to be derived therefrom. City finds and determines that the Project is in the best interests of the health, safety and general welfare of City and its residents, and that entering into this Agreement constitutes a valid, present exercise of its police power. City has undertaken the necessary proceedings, has found and determined that this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan, and has adopted Ordinance -7- 614 No. approving this Agreement. As a result of the development of the Project in accordance with this Agreement, City will receive substantial benefits. In consideration of the substantial benefits, commitments, and consideration to be provided by Developer pursuant to this Agreement, and in order to strengthen the public planning process and reduce the economic costs of development, City hereby provides Developer assurance that Developer can proceed with the construction and operation of the Project for the Term of this Agreement pursuant to the Applicable Rules and this Agreement. Developer would not enter into this Agreement or agree to provide the public benefits, commitments and consideration described in this Agreement if it were not for the certainty provided by this Agreement that the Project can be constructed and operated during the Term of this Agreement in accordance with the Applicable Rules and this Agreement. 1.5 City CEQA Findings. City finds that review of the environmental impacts of this Agreement, and the Project as a whole, has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State and local guidelines adopted thereunder, and City has given consideration to such environmental review prior to its approval of this Agreement and the Project, and has undertaken all actions necessary to comply with CEQA. 1.6 Modification or Amendment of this Agreement. Except as expressly stated to the contrary herein, this Agreement may be modified or amended from time to time, in whole or in part, only by mutual written consent of the Parties or their successors in interest, consistent with Government Code Section 65867-65868, the City's Development Agreement Ordinance, and the following terms: (a) Insubstantial Modifications. The Parties acknowledge that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that minor changes are appropriate with respect to the details of the Project development and the performance of the parties under this Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Project development and with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Agreement, and thus desire to provide a streamlined method of approving insubstantial modifications to this Agreement. Therefore, any minor modification to this Agreement which does not modify (i) the Term of this Agreement; (ii) permitted uses of the Site, (iii) maximum density or intensity of use, except as specifically allowed in the Specific Plan, (iv) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land, (v) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, or (vi) monetary obligations of Developer (hereinafter an "Insubstantial Modification"), and that can be processed under CEQA as exempt from CEQA, or with the preparation of an Addendum to the EIR, shall not require a public hearing prior to the parties executing a modification to this Agreement. Either Party may propose an Insubstantial Modification, consent to which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed by the other Party. Upon the written request of Developer for a modification to this Agreement, the City Manager or designee shall determine, in the City Manager's sole discretion but not to be unreasonably withheld: (1) whether the requested modification constitutes an "Insubstantial Modification," as defined herein; (2) whether the requested modification is consistent with In 615 Applicable Rules (other than that portion of this Agreement sought to be modified); and (3) whether the requested modification tends to promote the goals of this Agreement. If the City Manager or designee determines that the requested modification is an "Insubstantial Modification" that is consistent with Applicable Rules and tends to promote the goals of this Agreement, the proposed modification will be approved by the City as an Insubstantial Modification, and a written modification will be executed by the Parties and attached to this Agreement and recorded in the Recorder's Office. Any such Insubstantial Modification shall not be deemed an "amendment" to this Agreement under Government Code Section 65858. (b) Substantial Amendments. Except as otherwise described in Section 1.6(a) of this Agreement, amendments to this Agreement shall be "Substantial Amendments" which require notice and a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65868. (c) Amendment Exemptions. City approval of (1) administrative adjustments to a Project Approval, as defined in Section 2.2.10 of this Agreement, in conformity with Applicable Rules and this Agreement, shall not require a modification or amendment to this Agreement and shall automatically be deemed to be incorporated into the Project and vested under this Agreement. Likewise, City approval of any minor amendments or modifications to any Exhibit to this Agreement shall not require a modification or amendment to this Agreement and shall automatically be deemed to be incorporated into this Agreement and vested hereunder. (d) Parties Required to Amend. Where a portion of Developer's rights or obligations have been transferred, assigned, and assumed pursuant to Section 1.8 of this Agreement, the signature of the person or entity to whom such rights or obligations have been assigned shall not be required to amend this Agreement unless such amendment would materially alter the rights or obligations of such assignee/transferee hereunder. In no event shall the signature or consent of any Non -Assuming Transferee be required to amend this Agreement. 1.6.1 Effect of Amendment. Any amendment to this Agreement shall be operative only as to those specific portions of this Agreement expressly subject to the amendment, and all other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without interruption. 1.7 Termination. Unless terminated earlier, pursuant to the terms hereof, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further effect upon the expiration of the Term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 1.2. Termination of this Agreement, for any reason, shall not, by itself, affect any right or duty arising from entitlements or approvals set forth under the Project Approvals. As to any specific lot containing a residential dwelling within the Project, this Agreement shall terminate as to such lot upon the issuance by the City of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling and the close of escrow of the initial sale of that dwelling, save and except only those rights and obligations expressly stated in this Agreement to survive termination. In 616 1.8 Assignment of Interests, Rights and Obligations. Developer may transfer or assign all or any portion of its interests, rights or obligations under the Project Approvals to third parties acquiring an interest or estate in the Site, or any portion thereof, including, without limitation, purchasers or ground lessee(s) of lots, parcels or facilities, subject to the following: 1.8.1 Assignment and Assumption Agreements. (a) In connection with the transfer or assignment by Developer of all or any portion of the Site (other than a transfer or assignment by Developer to an affiliated party, a "Mortgagee", or a "Non -Assuming Transferee" (as defined in Section 1.8.2 below)), Developer and the transferee shall enter into a written agreement (an "Assignment and Assumption Agreement") regarding the respective interests, rights and obligations of Developer and the transferee in and under the Project Approvals. Such Assignment and Assumption Agreement may: (i) release Developer from obligations under the Project Approvals (including this Agreement) pertaining to that portion of the Site being transferred, as described in the Assignment and Assumption Agreement, provided that the transferee expressly assumes such obligations; (ii) transfer to the transferee vested rights to improve that portion of the Site being transferred; and (iii) address any other matter deemed by Developer to be necessary or appropriate in connection with the transfer or assignment. (b) Except as provided in Section 1.8.2 of this Agreement, Developer shall obtain City's prior written consent to any Assignment and Assumption Agreement, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. City may refuse to give its consent only if, in light of the proposed transferee's reputation and financial resources, such transferee would not in City's reasonable opinion be able to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by such transferee. Such determination shall be made by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney and is appealable by Developer directly to the City Council. (c) An Assignment and Assumption Agreement shall be binding on Developer, City and the transferee provided (i) Developer is not then in default under this Agreement, (ii) Developer has provided notice to City of such transfer, and City has approved the transfer, and (iii) the transferee executes and delivers to City a written agreement in which (a) the name and address of the transferee is set forth and (b) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes each and every obligation of Developer under this Agreement with respect to the Site, or portion thereof, being transferred (to the extent Developer has not retained a continuing obligation), (c) Developer no longer has any legal or equitable interest in the Site or the portion thereof sold or transferred, as applicable, and (d) City has satisfied itself of transferee's ability to assume those Developer obligations under this Agreement being assigned. Upon recordation of any Assignment and Assumption Agreement in the Recorder's Office, Developer shall automatically be released from those obligations assumed by the transferee therein. (d) Developer shall be free from any and all liabilities accruing on or after the date of any assignment or transfer with respect to those obligations assumed by a transferee pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption Agreement. No breach or default hereunder by any person succeeding to any portion of Developer's obligations under this Agreement shall be -10- 617 attributed to Developer, nor may Developer's rights hereunder be canceled or diminished in any way by any breach or default by any such person following Developer's release of obligations under the Project Approvals pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption Agreement assigning Developer's obligations to that successor. (e) Provided any assignment is consistent with the Development Agreement Act and Development Agreement Ordinance, the City may assign or transfer any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement with the approval of the Developer, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 1.8.2 Non -Assuming Transferees. Except as otherwise required by Developer, in Developer's sole discretion, the burdens, obligations and duties of Developer under this Agreement shall terminate with respect to: (i) any single residential parcel conveyed to a purchaser, or (ii) any property that has been established as one or more separate legal parcels and conveyed for open space, park, or similar nonresidential/noncommercial uses. Neither an Assignment and Assumption Agreement nor City's consent shall be required in connection with subsections (i) and (ii) above as long as Developer continues to assume obligations with respect to the portion that is transferred, or can otherwise demonstrate bonds and/or other financial security will satisfy these obligations, and in such case the transferee in such a transaction and its successors ("Non -Assuming Transferees") shall be deemed to have no obligations under this Agreement (except for obligations which extend to the individual units, single residential parcels, and any other parcels or property subject to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) provisions which implement this Agreement) but shall continue to benefit from the vested rights provided by this Agreement until this Agreement is terminated with respect to that parcel under Section 1.7 of this Agreement. Nothing in this section shall exempt any property transferred to a Non -Assuming Transferee from payment of applicable fees and assessments or compliance with applicable conditions of approval. 1.8.3 Transfers to Affiliated Parties. Developer, or any "Affiliated Parry" of Developer, may at any time and without City's prior written consent, transfer all or any portion of its rights and obligations under this Agreement to any "Affiliated Party" of such Transferor and, in connection with the transfer of any such obligations, be released from such obligations; provided, however, that Developer and the Affiliated Party duly execute (in recordable form) an Assignment and Assumption Agreement in a form approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, and Developer deliver said agreement to the City to ensure, among other terms and conditions, the City has the current address and notice information for any Affiliated Party that assumes all or any portion of Developer's rights and obligations under this Agreement. Any Assignment and Assumption Agreement between Developer and any Affiliated Party(ies) shall be recorded in the Recorder's Office upon complete execution by the parties thereto after approval of the form by the City Manager and City Attorney. As used herein, the term "Affiliated Party" shall mean any entity that owns fifty-one percent (51 %) or a controlling interest in Developer. The City shall have the right to request and review any and all articles of incorporation, bylaws, operating agreements, and other related governing documents of any Affiliated Party to confirm compliance with the requirements of this Section 1.8.3. -11- 618 2. AGREEMENTS AND ASSURANCES 2.1 Agreement and Assurance on the Part of Developer. In consideration for City entering into this Agreement, and as an inducement for City to obligate itself to carry out the covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, and in order to effectuate the premises, purposes and intentions set forth in the Recitals of this Agreement, Developer hereby agrees that the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including the Project Approvals incorporated herein, shall govern development and operation of the Site for the Term of this Agreement. 2.2 Agreement and Assurances on the Part of the City. In consideration for Developer entering into this Agreement, and as an inducement for Developer to obligate itself to carry out the covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, and in order to effectuate the premises, purposes and intentions set forth in this Agreement, City hereby agrees as follows: 2.2.1 Vested Entitlement to Develop. Developer has the vested right to develop the Project subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Applicable Rules, Project Approvals and the Reserved Powers. It is the intent of City and Developer that the vesting of development rights of Developer shall include the permitted land uses, densities, and intensities of use of the Site, timing or phasing of development, zoning, provisions for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the location and size of public improvements, as well as those other terms and conditions of development of the Project as set forth in this Agreement and the other Project Approvals. Developer's vested rights under this Agreement shall also include, without limitation, the right to remodel, renovate, rehabilitate, rebuild or replace all improvements within the Project or any portion thereof throughout the applicable Term for any reason, including, without limitation, in the event of damage, destruction or obsolescence of the existing development or the Project or any portion thereof, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Applicable Rules, Project Approvals and the Reserved Powers. Such vesting shall expire upon the earlier of the following occurrences: (a) termination of this Agreement; (b) an uncured material default by Developer of this Agreement; or (c) as to a particular phase, parcel, or lot comprising a portion of the Site, the earlier of the final approved City inspection of the completed development on such phase, parcel, or lot, or the issuance by the City of a certificate of occupancy for such phase, parcel, or lot. Except for the expiration set forth in clause (a) of the preceding sentence, the expiration of the vesting right set forth in the preceding sentence shall not terminate the obligations of Developer under this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the Project shall remain subject to the following, to the same extent they would apply without this Agreement: (i) all Applicable Rules; (ii) all New Laws applied to Developer through the City's Reserved Powers; -12- 619 (iii) all subsequent development approvals and the conditions of approval associated therewith, including but not limited to any further site development permits, tract maps, and building permits; and (iv) the payment of all applicable fees in effect on the Effective Date in the categories and in the amounts as required at the time such fees are due and payable, which may be at the time of issuance of building permits, or otherwise as specified by applicable law, as existing at the time such fees are due and payable, except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement. 2.2.2 Changes in Applicable Rules. (A) Nonapplication of Changes in Applicable Rules. Any change in, or addition to, the Applicable Rules, including, without limitation, any change in the General Plan or Specific Plan, zoning or building regulation, adopted or becoming effective after the Effective Date, including, without limitation, any such change by means of ordinance, City Charter amendment, initiative, referendum, resolution, motion, policy, order or moratorium, initiated or instituted for any reason whatsoever and adopted by the City, City Council, Planning Commission or any other board, commission, department or agency of the City, or any officer or employee thereof, or by the electorate, as the case may be, which would, absent this Agreement, otherwise be applicable to the Site and/or to the Project and which would conflict in any way with the Applicable Rules, Project Approvals, or this Agreement, or in any way reduce the development rights and allowances provided by this Agreement, shall not be applied to the Site or the Project unless such changes represent an exercise of City's Reserved Powers, or are otherwise agreed to in this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer may, in its sole discretion, consent to the application to the Project of any change in the Applicable Rules. (B) Changes in Uniform Codes. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, development of the Project shall be subject to changes which may occur from time to time in the Uniform Codes, as such Codes are adopted by the City of La Quinta. (C) Changes Mandated by Federal or State Law. This Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Project of changes in, or additions to, the Applicable Rules, including rules, regulations, ordinances and official policies, to the extent that such changes or additions are mandated to be applied to developments such as this Project by state or federal regulations, pursuant to the Reserved Powers. In the event state or federal laws or regulations prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provisions shall be modified or suspended only to the extent necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations. -13- 620 2.2.3 Subsequent Development Review. Nothing set forth herein shall impair or interfere with the right of City to require the processing of building permits as required by law pursuant to the applicable provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code and the provisions of Uniform Codes. 2.2.4 Effective Development Standards. City agrees that it is bound to permit the uses, intensities of use, and densities of development on the Site which are permitted by this Agreement and the Project Approvals, insofar as this Agreement and the Project Approvals so provide or as otherwise set forth in the Applicable Rules. City hereby agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold or unreasonably condition any approvals and/or permits which must be issued by City in order for the Project to proceed, provided that Developer reasonably and satisfactorily complies with all City-wide standard procedures for processing applications for such approvals and/or permits. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to require the City to issue a permit or approval that is inconsistent with the Applicable Rules. 2.2.5 Moratoria or Interim Control Ordinances. In the event an ordinance, resolution, policy, or other measure is enacted, whether by action of City, by initiative, or otherwise, which relates directly or indirectly to the Project or to the rate, amount, timing, sequencing, or phasing of the development or construction of the Project on all or any part of the Site, or the use of the Site (or any portion thereof) as authorized by this Agreement, or the implementation of the Mitigation Measures adopted in connection with approval of the Project, City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Site, the Project or this Agreement, unless such changes are lawfully adopted pursuant to the Reserved Powers and do not conflict with any provisions of this Agreement. 2.2.6 Reserved. 2.2.7 Impact Fees. Notwithstanding any provisions in this Agreement regarding the type, amounts, and rates of Impact Fees to the contrary, the Impact Fees imposed by City with respect to the Project shall be only those Impact Fees in full force and effect as of the Effective Date, in the amounts/rate in effect at the time such fees are paid. 2.2.8 Timeframes and Staffing for Processing and Review. City agrees that expeditious processing of Ministerial Permits and Approvals and Discretionary Actions, if any, and any other approvals or actions required for the Project are critical to the implementation of the Project. In recognition of the importance of timely processing and review of Ministerial Permits and Approvals and Discretionary Actions, City agrees to reasonably cooperate with Developer to establish time frames for processing and reviewing such Ministerial Permits and Approvals and Discretionary Actions and to comply with any timeframes established in the Project Approvals. City further agrees to timely process and approve all Ministerial Permits and Approvals, so long as they are consistent with the terms of this Agreement, the Applicable -14- 621 Rules, and the Project Approvals, and agrees to exercise its discretion concerning Discretionary Actions in manner that is consistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2.2.9 Extension of Tentative Maps. In accordance with Government Code Section 66452.6(a)(1), all tentative subdivision maps and tentative parcel maps, whether vesting or not, which may be approved by the City in connection with the development of the Project, shall be extended for the greater period of (a) twenty (20) years or (b) such maximum total time as is permitted in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections 66410 et seq.) or Applicable Rules. 2.2.10 Project Approval Adjustments. To the extent permitted by state and federal law, any Project Approval may, from time to time, be amended or modified in the following manner: (a) Administrative Adjustments. Upon the written request of Developer for a modification to a Project Approval (other than this Agreement), the Development Director or designee, in consultation with the City Engineer, shall determine: (i) whether the requested modification is minor when considered in light of the Project as a whole, and (ii) whether the requested modification is consistent with Applicable Rules (other than that portion of the Applicable Rules sought to be amended). If the Development Director or designee, in consultation with the City Engineer, determines, in his/her reasonable judgment, that the proposed modification is both minor and consistent with Applicable Rules (other than that portion of a Project Approval sought to be amended), the modification shall be determined to be an "Administrative Adjustment" and the Development Director or designee, in consultation with the City Engineer, may, except to the extent otherwise required by state or federal law, approve the Administrative Adjustment without notice and public hearing. For the purpose of this Section 2.2.10, and by way of example only, site plan review, architectural review, lotting pattern changes, changes in pedestrian paths, tentative subdivision map amendments (including lotting patterns and street alignments) which are minor and will not have a substantial or material impact on traffic circulation as described for each such area in the Specific Plan, substitutions of comparable landscaping for any landscaping shown on a landscape plan, minor variations in the location of lots or homesites that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, final locations of floating park sites, floating public facility sites, and minor variations in the location or installation of utilities and other infrastructure connections or facilities that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, may be treated as Administrative Adjustments by the Development Director and the City Engineer. (b) Non -Administrative Amendments. Any request of Developer for a modification to a Project Approval (other than this Agreement), which is not approved as an Administrative Adjustment as set forth above, shall be subject to review, consideration, and action pursuant to Applicable Rules. -15- 622 3. DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATIONS 3.1 Development of the Project; Planned Development. Developer shall construct the Project on the Site only in accordance with the Project Approvals. As depicted in the Project Approvals, as the same may be updated or amended from time to time consistent with the terms hereof, the Project shall consist of a mixed-use resort development with the following components: (A) Up to 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial development with associated parking, circulation and landscaping improvements on approximately 7.7 acres on a portion of "Planning Area V"; (B) Up to 750 single-family residential dwellings and related recreational and open space amenities and infrastructure improvements on approximately 191.8 acres on a portion of "Planning Area III"; (C) A golf course and other recreational amenities, as well as related facilities and infrastructure improvements on approximately 184.9 acres on a portion of "Planning Area VI" and related facilities and infrastructure improvements; and (D) Allowance of short-term vacation rentals pursuant to Article 5 of this Agreement and as permitted under the Specific Plan. Developer shall develop the Project only in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Applicable Rules, the Project Approvals, and the Schedule of Performance And Phasing Plan as that schedule may be modified pursuant to mutual written agreement of the parties or extended pursuant to Section 8.2 of this Agreement. If any item of performance is not completed in accordance with the Schedule of Performance And Phasing Plan, then following the notice and cure periods set forth in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of this Agreement, the City shall have the right to terminate the Agreement as to the specific portion of the Project that has not been completed in accordance with the Schedule of Performance And Phasing Plan, subject to the procedures described in Section 6.3 of this Agreement. Except as set forth in this Section 3. 1, Developer is not obligated to affirmatively act to develop all or any portion of the Site, pay any sums of money, dedicate any land, indemnify any party (save and except Developer's obligation to indemnify the City for all costs associated with any legal challenge to this Agreement or the Project Approvals), or to otherwise meet or perform any obligation with respect to the Site, except and only as a condition to the development of the Project. When Developer develops any portion of the Site, Developer shall comply with the terms of this Agreement, the Applicable Rules, and the Project Approvals governing development of the Site or any portion thereof. 3.2 Compliance with Government Code Section 66473.7 Developer shall comply with the provisions of Government Code section 66473.7 with respect to any Tract Maps prepared for the Project. -16- 623 3.3 Project Design Features Referenced in EIR. As a condition of development, Developer shall incorporate into the Project all project design features identified in the EIR and included as part of the "project" evaluated in the EIR and its technical studies, if applicable to Alternative 2 in the EIR, as specifically identified in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. Developer's compliance with this provision is a contractual commitment that is enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 3.4 Mitigation Monitoring Program. As a condition of development, the Developer shall also comply with the mitigation monitoring program set forth in Exhibit "D" attached hereto (the "Mitigation Monitoring Program"), and Developer's compliance with this provision is a contractual commitment that is enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 3.5 Conditions of Approval. As a condition of development, the Developer shall also comply with the conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit "E," and Developer's compliance with this provision is a contractual commitment that is enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Developer acknowledges that additional conditions of approval beyond those set forth in Exhibit `B" may be applicable to the Project if and as associated with future Project approvals, to the extent such additional conditions of approval are consistent with the terms of this Agreement. 3.5.1 CVMSHCP Compliance. (A) Notwithstanding any provisions in this Agreement to the contrary, the following terms and conditions in furtherance of CVMSHCP compliance shall apply: The Project shall comply with all provisions of the CVMSHCP Guidelines for all areas adjacent to Coral Mountain or any other Bureau of Land Management (`BLM") open space as shown on Figure 13 in the Specific Plan; (B) The development of the Project and use of the Site (and each applicable Planning Area on the Site) shall fully comply with all CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, even though no portion of the Project or the Site is in or adjacent to any CVMSHCP conservation area, as set forth in more detail in Section 2.5 of the Specific Plan. Without limiting the obligation to comply with the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, the following terms and conditions apply to the development of the Project and use of the Site: (i) There shall be no planting of invasive, non-native plant species in and adjacent to CVMSHCP conservation areas as shown on Figure 13 of the Specific Plan; and (ii) The Project shall follow the recommended and prohibited species as noted in Tables 4-112 and 4-113 of the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, as set forth in Table 3 of the Specific Plan ("Plant Material Palette"). (C) To further the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines requirement for the incorporation of barriers to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, and dumping in a CVMSHCP conservation area, there shall be a protective barrier that complies with the requirements for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep ("PBS") barriers along the western boundary, covering all areas adjacent to Coral Mountain and other BLM -17- 624 open space property, as set forth in more detail in Section 2.5 of the Specific Plan. The protective sheep barrier shall be at least eight (8) feet high, with the final design and location subject to City approval in consultation with CDFW. All recreational infrastructure and activities shall be located on the development -side and not on the BLM side of the protective sheep barrier. 3.5.2 CC&Rs Incorporating CVMSHCP Compliance. The CVMSHCP compliance requirements set forth in Section 3.5.1 of this Agreement shall be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the Project and the Site, which shall be recorded against the Site as provided for in Section 3.8 of this Agreement, and shall be enforceable in perpetuity for the life of the Project and use of the Site. 3.6 Payment of Fees. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall timely pay all Processing Fees and Impact Fees with respect to the Project as specified in this Agreement. 3.6.1 Reserved 3.6.2 Annual Mitigation Fee: Cessation of Annual Fee. To ensure that the Project generates sufficient TOT and sales tax revenues to the City to pay all public safety and other public service costs of the City resulting from the Project, during the first ten (10) years of the Term of this Agreement, on each July 1st following the Effective Date ("Annual Mitigation Payment Date"), the Developer or the Developer's successor shall pay to the City an annual mitigation fee ("Coral Mountain Annual Mitigation Fee") covering the annual period of the prior July 1 through the June 30 occurring immediately preceding the Annual Mitigation Payment Date (the "Operative Year") (provided, however, the first Operative Year shall commence on the Effective Date of this Agreement and end on the next occurring June 30). The Coral Mountain Annual Mitigation Fee shall be comprised of the following: The collective sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each of the 750 allowed residential units (also referred to as the "Coral Mountain Residential Unit Fee") in the Project that has received a certificate of occupancy, and that has been sold to a third party purchaser as evidenced by a recorded grant deed for such unit, prior to the applicable Annual Mitigation Payment Date, regardless of when or in which Operative Year the unit was sold. Notwithstanding the two paragraphs above, if the City has received TOT for rentals from the Project in excess of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) but less than One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,700,000.00) ("Level 1 TOT Goal") for two consecutive Operative Years during the Term of this Agreement, the Coral Mountain Annual Mitigation Fee for the next Operative Year (and each Operative Year thereafter) shall be reduced from One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per residential unit in the Project to Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per residential unit in the Project. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the three paragraphs above, if the City has received TOT for rentals from the Project in excess of One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,700,000.00) ("Level 2 TOT Goal") for two consecutive Operative Years during the Term of this Agreement, then the Developer's (or the Developer's successor's) obligation to pay so 625 the Coral Mountain Annual Mitigation Fee for any Operative Years thereafter shall terminate and shall no longer be of any further force and effect. Notwithstanding the obligation (or termination of the obligation) by Developer (or Developer's successors) to pay the Coral Mountain Annual Mitigation Fee, all rentals of residential units and hotel units shall remain subject to the City's TOT requirements. The CC&Rs for the residential units in the Project shall provide for the assessment and collection of the Coral Mountain Annual Mitigation Fee consistent with the terms hereof, and shall provide for and adequately ensure the collection and payment thereof. As to the collection and payment of the Coral Mountain Annual Mitigation Fee, the CC&Rs shall provide the City with enforcement rights against both the Developer or its successor and the individual homeowners. The City shall be provided with the same rights of collection as to the Coral Mountain Annual Mitigation Fee that the Developer or its successor shall have for the collection of other fees and assessments, but the Developer or its successor shall have the obligation for collection and payment of the Coral Mountain Annual Mitigation Fee. In any action by the City to collect the Coral Mountain Annual Mitigation Fee, the City shall, in addition to the fee, be entitled to collect all of its costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees in enforcing its rights. The CC&Rs shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Section 3.8 of this Agreement. 3.6.3 Annual Rate Adjustment. The Coral Mountain Unit Fee, the Level 1 TOT Goal, and the Level 2 TOT Goal shall be adjusted annually, on each July 1St during the term of this Agreement, commencing on the first anniversary of the first Annual Mitigation Payment Date, by an increase of two percent (2%) per year. The CC&Rs as described in the last paragraph of Section 3.6.2 above shall include the annual rate adjustment as provided in this Section 3.6.3 of this Agreement. 3.6.4 Other Fees and Charges. Except as expressly limited in this Agreement, nothing set forth in this Agreement is intended to or shall be construed to limit or restrict the City's authority to impose its existing, or any new or increased, Citywide fees, charges, levies, or assessments for the development of the Site, or to impose or increase, subject to the required procedure, any taxes applicable to the Site including but not limited to transient occupancy taxes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer reserves the right to challenge the application of any fee, charge, levy, assessment, or tax imposed on the Project or Site by the City if Developer contends it violates the terms of this Agreement or the other Project Approvals. Developer shall timely pay all applicable fees, charges, levies, assessments, and special and general taxes validly imposed in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the State of California, including without limitation school impact fees in accordance with Government Code §§ 65995, et seq. 3.7 Dedications and Improvements; Improvement Security. Developer shall complete and offer dedications to the City or other applicable public agency of those public improvements required in connection with the Project, as specified in the Conditions of Approval. In connection with the recordation of any final subdivision map for the -19- 626 Project, Developer shall, through the execution of a subdivision improvement agreement with the City, provide to the City, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney, improvement security as provided in the City Code to secure the faithful performance of Developer's obligations under this Agreement to construct the on-site and off-site public improvements identified on that map. The terms, amounts and provisions for release of the improvement security shall be as set forth in the City Code. 3.8 Declaration(s) of Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions. Developer shall prepare, draft (in a form to be approved by the City Manager and City Attorney), execute, and cause to be recorded in the Recorder's Office one or more Declaration(s) of Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") to govern the authorized and required land uses and operations at the Site, and the general maintenance, repair, landscaping, public and private utility usage and ownership (including streets, alleys, sidewalks, water, sewer, gas, electricity, telecommunications, and related infrastructure), and any other terms and conditions as may be necessary or appropriate to maintain the use and operation of the Site, and all common areas, consistent with the terms and conditions of the Project. Developer may have CC&Rs prepared, drafted, executed, and recorded for each of the separate phases (Planning Area III, Planning Area V, and Planning Area VI) of the Project, but the CC&Rs shall include at a minimum the terms and conditions governing the payment of fees as required in Section 6.3 of this Agreement, the terms and conditions allowing for the use of short-term vacation rentals as provided in Article 5 of this Agreement for the applicable Planning Areas of the Project, and general maintenance, repair, landscaping, public and private utility usage and ownership (including streets, alleys, sidewalks, water, sewer, gas, electricity, telecommunications, and related infrastructure. The CC&Rs shall be implemented and enforced by a duly established homeowners association ("HOA") pursuant to state law for a common interest development. The City shall be deemed a third party beneficiary to the CC&Rs with the right, but not the obligation, to enforce any terms and conditions included for the benefit of the City as provided for in this Agreement or the CC&Rs ("City Required Provisions"). The City Required Provisions, once approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, may not be substantively amended or modified without the prior written consent of the City Manager and City Attorney, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 3.9 Indemnification. Developer shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless City and City's officers, officials, members, employees, volunteers, agents, and representatives (any of the foregoing shall be known individually as "Indemnitee" and collectively as "Indemnitees"), and each of them, jointly and severally, against and from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, costs, expenses, losses and liabilities, at law or in equity, of every kind or nature whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert witness fees, arising out of or directly relating to construction and development -related activities on the Site by Developer, but excluding those resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of any Indemnitee, but including, without limitation, injury to or death of any person or persons and damage to or destruction of any property, threatened, brought or instituted ("Claims"). In the event of any action, litigation, or other adversarial proceeding in any way involving the Claims specified in this section, City agrees, at no cost to City, to cooperate with Developer. Developer shall have the obligation to provide the -20- 627 defense of City in the action, litigation, or other adversarial proceeding, either by providing for legal counsel or, at City's option, timely paying the legal costs incurred by City in the defense of litigation, even though negligence or gross negligence of Developer or its contractors, subcontractors, agents, employees or other persons acting on its behalf has not been established at the time that the defense is provided. In addition, Developer shall be obligated to promptly pay any final judgment or portion thereof rendered against the Indemnitee or Indemnitees. In the event of any court action or proceeding challenging the validity of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, Developer shall indemnify, hold harmless, pay all costs and provide defense for City in said action or proceeding with counsel chosen by Developer and reasonably approved by City. City shall, at no cost to City, cooperate with Developer in any such defense as Developer may reasonably request. In the event Developer fails or refuses to provide such defense of any challenge to this Agreement or the Project Approvals, or any component thereof, City shall have the right not to defend such challenge, and to resolve such challenge in any manner it chooses in its sole discretion, including terminating this Agreement. In the event of such termination, Developer, upon written request of City, shall immediately execute a termination document or other document reasonably required by a reputable title company to remove this Agreement as a cloud on title. 3.10 Reserved. 4. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS 4.1 Scope of Subsequent Review/Confirmation of Compliance Process. Nothing set forth herein shall impair or interfere with the right of City to require the processing of building permits as required by law pursuant to the applicable provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code and the provisions of City's Fire Codes and ordinances, Health and Safety Codes and ordinances, and Building, Electrical, Mechanical, and similar building codes. Prior to each request for a building permit, Developer shall provide City with a Compliance Certificate ("Certificate"), in substantially the same form as that attached hereto as Exhibit "F", which shall describe how all applicable Conditions of Approval have been fully complied with. The Certificate shall be distributed to the relevant City departments in order to check the representations made by Developer on the Certificate. 4.2 Project Approvals Independent. All approvals required for the Project which may be or have been granted, and all land use entitlements or approvals generally which have been issued or will be issued by City with respect to the Project, constitute independent actions and approvals by City. If any provision of this Agreement or the application of any provision of this Agreement to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, or if this Agreement terminates for any reason, then such invalidity, unenforceability or termination of this Agreement or any part hereof shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of any such Project approvals or other land use approvals and entitlements. In such cases, such approvals and entitlements will remain in effect pursuant to their own terms, provisions, and the Conditions of Approval. It is understood by the -21- 628 Parties that pursuant to existing law, if this Agreement terminates or is held invalid or unenforceable as described above, such approvals and entitlements shall not remain valid for the term of this Agreement, but shall remain valid for the term of such approvals and entitlements. 4.3 City Cooperation. The parties agree that Developer must be able to proceed rapidly with the development of the Site and, accordingly, that expedited City review of tentative maps, final maps, modifications to Project Approvals, building permits and construction inspections, is essential to the successful completion of the Project. Accordingly, to the extent that the applications and submittals are in conformity with the Project Approvals, Applicable Rules, and this Agreement, and adequate funding exists therefor, City agrees to provide adequate City resources to diligently accept, review, and take action on all subsequent applications and submittals made to City by Developer in furtherance of the Project. Similarly, to the extent that adequate funding exists therefor, City shall provide adequate City resources to promptly review and approve improvement plans, conduct construction inspections, and accept completed public facilities that are planned and completed in compliance with the Project Approvals, Applicable Rules, and this Agreement. Developer agrees to reimburse the City for all costs associated with providing expedited services, above and beyond those costs covered by the City's Processing Fees. In the event City does not have adequate resources, City shall authorize the use of "contract labor" for inspection and plan review purposes, which shall be reimbursed by Developer, pursuant to a mutually agreeable reimbursement agreement that also specifies any fee credit to Developer to avoid Developer paying more than once for the same plan check, inspection, or other City service. City shall consult with Developer concerning the selection of the most knowledgeable, efficient and available "contract labor" for purposes of providing inspection and plan review duties for the City and the Project; provided, however, that City shall retain the right to select any "contract labor" it reasonably chooses. 4.4 Final Map and Improvement Plan Procedures. The City shall complete improvement plan and final map review in accordance with Applicable Rules, in good faith, and in an expeditious manner. If reasonably necessary, City shall have the right to hire outside inspectors and/or consultants, the cost of which shall be reimbursed by Developer. For those improvement plans or other implementing approvals under the jurisdiction of another agency, if any, the City agrees to reasonably cooperate in providing any necessary information or approval in a timely manner, so long as the plans do not substantially conflict with the Project Approvals. 4.5 Building Permits. City shall complete its review of house plans and issue building permits in a good faith and expeditious manner. Recordation of a final map shall not be required prior to the issuance of building permits for model homes. 4.6 Environmental Review and Mitigation. The Parties understand and agree that the EIR for the Project considers the whole of the Project, including each of the Project Approvals and all Discretionary Actions and Ministerial -22- 629 Permits and Project Approvals necessary for development of the Project. Accordingly, the City agrees to use the certified EIR for this Project as a program and project EIR to comply with CEQA's environmental review requirements for all future Discretionary Actions to the maximum extent allowed by law, including applying the CEQA exemptions specified in Government Code Section 65457 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15182 and 15183, which establish an exemption from further environmental review for the processing of tentative tract maps after certification of a Specific Plan EIR for residential development, if the proposed tentative tract maps are consistent with the Specific Plan and meet other applicable requirements. If an exemption or reliance on the EIR as a program and project EIR is not legally permissible, in the City's sole judgment, then City and Developer agree to meet and confer as to the most appropriate form of environmental review of such approval, provided, however, that City shall retain the authority to determine the most appropriate form of such environmental review. 4.7 Inspections. Any building or fire inspection request received by City from Developer will be processed as expeditiously as possible, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and (as applicable) provisions in the La Quinta Municipal Code and City's standard inspection procedures. 4.8 Review for Compliance. City shall review Developer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement at least once during every twelve (12) month period following the Effective Date in accordance with the City's procedures and standards for such review. During such periodic review by the City, Developer, upon written request from the City, shall be required to demonstrate, and hereby agrees to furnish, evidence of good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The failure of the City to conduct or complete the annual review as provided herein shall not impact the validity of this Agreement or the obligations of the Parties to perform pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If, at the conclusion of the annual review provided for herein, Developer has been found in compliance with this Agreement, City shall, at Developer's request, issue a certificate of compliance to Developer stating that (i) This Agreement remains in full force and effect, and (ii) Developer is in compliance with this Agreement. The certificate of compliance shall be in a form approved by the Parties and, for the City, the City Manager and the City Attorney, and may be in recordable form. Developer may, at its sole cost and expense, record any such certificate of compliance if obtained. If, at the conclusion of the annual review provided for herein, Developer has been found not to be in compliance with this Agreement, City shall, at is sole and absolute discretion, exercise any and all rights available under this Agreement and otherwise available at law or in equity. 5. SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS/TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES. 5.1 Short Term Vacation Rentals as a Permitted Use. This Agreement does hereby provide that short-term vacation rentals are a permitted use in all Planning Areas within the Project and on the Site that allow residential uses, and the rights to such permitted use are hereby vested pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, and this vested -23- 630 right shall inure to the benefit of Developer and all owners of residential units within the Project. As such, the rights and obligations under this Section 5 shall survive the sale of each residential unit to a third -party homebuyer and termination of this Agreement to each such unit. Except to the extent expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement, the City shall not impose on or apply to the Project (whether by action of the Council, or other legislative body, or by initiative, referendum, or other measure) any ordinance, resolution, standard, directive, condition, or other measure that is in conflict with this provision or that would materially interfere with right to apply for and, with City staff approval, operate short-term vacation rentals in all residential units within the Project. Such short-term vacation rentals within the Project shall be subject to the Short -Term Vacation Rental Regulations, including but not limited to violations and penalties for such violations for failing to comply with the City's Short -Term Vacation Rental Regulations. (For reference only, a copy of Chapter 3.25 of the La Quinta Municipal Code in effect as of the Effective Date is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "G". In the event Chapter 3.25 is repealed in its entirely, only then the provisions of Chapter 3.25 as attached to this Agreement shall govern the permitting, operation, and renewal of short-term vacation rental permits in the Project and on the Site.) In order to ensure the timely collection and reporting of the applicable transient occupancy taxes, and compliance with the applicable operational requirements and conditions set forth in the Short -Term Vacation Rental Regulations, the Developer or its successor or assignee shall be the "authorized agent or representative" (as that term is defined in the Short -Term Vacation Rental Regulations, or, if the definition is removed during the Term of this Agreement, as defined in Chapter 3.25 as of the Effective Date of this Agreement) for all short-term vacation rentals and short-term vacation rental permits within the Project, including but not limited to applying for and managing all short-term vacation rental permits, making all reservations and payments, and ensuring compliance with all other requirements of the Short -Term Vacation Rental Regulations, and shall do so exclusively through a central rental operator pursuant to Section 5.3.1 of this Agreement, which shall be confirmed at the issuance and renewal of each short-term vacation rental permit; provided, however, that the "owner" (as that term is defined in the Short -Term Vacation Rental Regulations, or, if the definition is removed during the Term of this Agreement, as defined in Chapter 3.25 as of the Effective Date of this Agreement) shall remain ultimately obligated as the holder of the short-term vacation rental permit for any and all remedial actions necessary for compliance with the Short -Term Vacation Rental Regulations and this Agreement, including but not limited to the payment of any fines or recorded liens or any other violations for non-compliance; and, provided further, that the "owner" shall have a process available, through an independent arbitrator or neutral decision -maker designated by the Developer or homeowner's association ("HOA") of which the short-term vacation rental unit owner is a member, to petition for a change of that owner's "authorized agent or representative" because the owner demonstrates, with a preponderance of evidence, that the "authorized agent or representative," designated by the Developer or its successor or assignee, has failed to perform its duty to ensure compliance with all other requirements of the Short -Term Vacation Rental Regulations for that owner's short-term vacation rental unit. The CC&Rs as described in Section 3.8 of this Agreement shall include the terms and conditions, and detailed specifics for process and decision, whenever an owner may petition the HOA for a change in that owner's "authorized agent or representative" as required by this Section 5.1; the City Manager and City Attorney shall review and approve, in their reasonable discretion and not to be unreasonably delayed or denied, said terms and conditions in the CC&Rs that would apply if an owner were to petition the HOA for a change in that owner's "authorized agent or representative" as required by this Section 5.1. -24- 631 Pursuant to the expressed exceptions referenced in the preceding paragraph, the following provisions shall apply to the use and operation of the Project and each single family residence on the Site within the Project: (A) The operational requirements and restrictions in Section 3.25.070 (or successor section) of the La Quinta Municipal Code shall apply to all short-term vacation rental units, including the limits on the number of daytime and overnight guests in each unit to ensure that occupancy levels are appropriate for the number of bedrooms and compatible with single- family residential communities; (B) All short-term vacation rental units in the Project shall be subject to, at a minimum, the noise restrictions in Sections 9.100.210 and 11.08.040 (or successor sections) of the La Quinta Municipal Code, in addition to any noise compliance requirements set forth in Chapter 3.25 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 5.2 Transient Occupancy Tax. All short-term vacation rentals in the Project shall be subject to, and comply with, the City's Transient Occupancy Ordinance as set forth in Chapter 3.24 (or successor provisions) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. To the extent the City revises its Transient Occupancy Ordinance after the Effective Date of this Agreement, all short-term vacation rentals in the Project will be subject to those revised or amended provisions unless doing so would violate the vested rights set forth in Section 5.1 of this Agreement. It is the intent of this provision to require, at all times, that all short- term vacation rentals in the Project comply with the City's requirements and procedures for collecting, reporting and paying the applicable transient occupancy tax, including as those requirements and procedures may be modified during the term of this Agreement. 5.3 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. All CC&Rs recorded pursuant to Section 3.8 of this Agreement on any property within the Project where residential uses are allowed shall expressly authorize short-term vacation rentals for all residential units. All such CC&Rs shall state the operational requirements and standard conditions applicable to short-term rentals in that tract or planning area of the Project. 5.3.1 Rental Management Program. Developer shall be responsible for ensuring that for the Term of this Agreement, one or more contract(s) shall be in effect at all times which provide opportunities to the owners of the resort residential units to have the ability to make their units available for short-term rentals permitted by this Agreement and the CC&Rs. The contract or contracts may, but are not required to be, with an on-site rental management agent. Developer may assign this obligation to its successors in accordance with this Agreement. 6. DEFAULT: REMEDIES: DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 6.1 Notice of Default. -25- 632 In the event of failure by either Party substantially to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement, the non -defaulting Party shall have those rights and remedies provided herein, provided that such non -defaulting Party has first provided to the defaulting Party a written notice of default in the manner required by Section 8.1 hereof identifying with specificity the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may satisfactorily be cured. 6.2 Cure of Default. Upon the receipt of the notice of default, the alleged defaulting Party shall promptly commence to cure, correct, or remedy the identified default at the earliest reasonable time after receipt of the notice of default and shall complete the cure, correction or remedy of such default not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice of default, or, for such defaults that cannot reasonably be cured, corrected or remedied within thirty (30) days, such Party shall commence to cure, correct, or remedy such default within such thirty (30) day period, shall and continuously and diligently prosecute such cure, correction or remedy to completion. 6.3 City Remedies. In the event of an uncured default by Developer of the terms of this Agreement, City, at its option, may institute legal action in law or in equity to cure, correct, or remedy such default, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, or enforce the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, that in no event shall City be entitled to consequential damages or other monetary damages (with the exception of Developer's potential obligations for indemnity or attorneys' fees as provided in Sections 3.9 and 8.22 or for potential Short Term Vacation Rental penalties or other code enforcement remedies) for any Developer default. For purposes of this Agreement the term "consequential damages" shall include, but not be limited to, potential loss of anticipated tax or fee revenues from the Project or any portion thereof. Furthermore, City, in addition to or as an alternative to exercising the remedies set forth in this Section 6.3, in the event of a material uncured default by Developer, may give notice of its intent to terminate or modify this Agreement pursuant to City's Development Agreement Ordinance and/or the Development Agreement Act, in which event the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council in the manner set forth in the City's Development Agreement Ordinance or the Development Agreement Act. 6.4 Developer's Exclusive Remedies. The parties acknowledge that the City would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under, or with respect to, this Agreement or any of the matters referred to herein including, but not limited to, the Project Approvals, the Applicable Rules or any future amendments or enactments thereto, or the Project, except as provided in this Section. Accordingly, Developer covenants on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, not to sue the City for damages or monetary relief (except for attorneys' fees as provided for by Section 8.22) for any breach of this Agreement by City or arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy, or issue between Developer and City regarding this Agreement or any of the matters referred to herein including but not limited to the application, interpretation, or effect of this Agreement, the Project Approvals, the Applicable Rules or any future amendments or enactments thereto, or the Project, or any land use permits or approvals sought in connection with the development of the Project or any component thereof, or use of a parcel or any portion thereof, the parties agreeing that -26- 633 declaratory and injunctive relief, mandate, and specific performance shall be Developer's sole and exclusive judicial remedies. 7. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE 7.1 Encumbrances on the Project Site. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer from encumbering the Site or any portion thereof or any improvements thereon with any mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement, or any other form of conveyance in which the Site, or a portion thereof or interest therein, is pledged as security, and contracted for in good faith and fair value (a "Mortgage") securing financing with respect to the construction, development, use or operation of the Project. 7.2 Mortgage Protection. �, 4 This Agreement shall be superior and senior to the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, and any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in or with respect to the Site or any portion thereof by a holder of a beneficial interest under a Mortgage, or any successor or assignee to said holder (a "Mortgagee") [whether pursuant to foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, lease termination or otherwise] shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 7.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated. _ No Mortgagee will have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform the obligations of the Developer or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder, or to guarantee such performance, except that (i) the Mortgagee shall have no right to develop or operate the Site, and (ii) to the extent that any covenant to be performed by the Developer is a condition to the performance of a covenant by the City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to the City's performance hereunder. 7.4 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure. With respect to any mortgage or deed of trust granted by Developer, whenever City may deliver any notice or demand to Developer with respect to any breach or default by Developer in completion of construction of the Project or any component of the Project, City shall at the same time deliver a copy of such notice or demand to each holder of record of any mortgage or deed of trust which has previously requested such notice in writing. Each such holder shall (insofar as the rights granted by City are concerned) have the right, at its option, within sixty (60) days after the receipt of the notice, to cure or remedy or commence to cure or remedy and thereafter to pursue with due diligence the cure or remedy of any such default and to add the cost thereof to the mortgage debt and the lien of its mortgage. It is understood that a holder shall be deemed to have satisfied the sixty (60) day time limit set forth above for commencing to cure or remedy a Developer default which requires title and/or possession of the Site (or portion thereof) if and to the extent any such holder has within such sixty (60) day period commenced proceedings to obtain title and/or possession and thereafter the holder diligently pursues such proceedings to completion and cures or remedies the default. -27- 634 8. MISCELLANEOUS 8.1 Notices. Demands and Communications Between the Parties. Any approval, disapproval, demand, document or other notice ("Notice") which either Parry may desire to give to the other Parry under this Agreement must be in writing and shall be sufficiently given if (i) delivered by hand, (ii) delivered by reputable same-day or overnight messenger service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the principal offices of City and Developer at the addresses specified below, or at any other address as that Party may later designate by Notice. To City: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Attn: Community Development Director With a copy to: Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Attn: William H. Ihrke To Developer: CM Wave Development LLC c/o Meriwether Companies 2235 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 Attn: Garrett Simon And CM Wave Development Companies c/o John Gamlin 79-625 Rancho San Pascual La Quinta, CA 92253 Stowell, Zeilenga, Ruth, Vaughn & Treiger, LLP With a copy to: 4590 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Attn: James D. Vaughn, Esq so 635 Any written notice, demand or communication shall be deemed received immediately if personally delivered or delivered by delivery service, and shall be deemed received on the third day from the date it is postmarked if delivered by registered or certified mail. 8.2 Force Majeure. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either Party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default, and all performance and other dates specified in this Agreement shall be extended, where delays or Defaults are due to causes beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time to perform, which may include the following (each, a "Force Majeure"): war; insurrection; acts of terrorism; strikes; lockouts; riots; floods; earthquakes; fires; casualties; acts of God; acts of the public enemy; epidemics; quarantine restrictions; freight embargoes; lack of transportation; governmental restrictions or priority imposed or mandated by other governmental entities; unusually severe weather; inability to secure necessary labor, materials or tools; delays of any contractor, subcontractor or supplier; acts or omissions of the other Parry; or acts or failures to act of any public or governmental agency or entity (other than the acts or failures to act of City which shall not excuse performance by City), or any other causes beyond the control or without the fault of the party claiming an extension of time to perform. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, an extension of time for any such cause shall only be for the period of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the Party claiming such extension is sent to the other Party within thirty (30) days of the commencement of the cause, or shall commence to run from the date such notice is subsequently given. Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by the mutual agreement of City and Developer. Notwithstanding the paragraph above, Developer is not entitled pursuant to this Section 8.2 to an extension of time to perform because of past, present, or future difficulty in obtaining suitable construction or permanent financing for the development of the Site, or because of economic or market conditions. 8.3 BindingEffect. ffect. This Agreement, and all of the terms and conditions hereof, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, any subsequent owner of all or any portion of the Project or the Site, and their respective assigns, heirs or successors in interest, whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Project or the Site. 8.4 Independent Entity. The Parties acknowledge that, in entering into and performing this Agreement, each of Developer and City is acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of the other in any respect. 8.5 Agreement Not to Benefit Third Parties. This Agreement is made for the sole benefit of the Parties, and no other person shall be deemed to have any privity of contract under this Agreement nor any right to rely on this -29- 636 Agreement to any extent for any purpose whatsoever, nor have any right of action of any kind on this Agreement nor be deemed to be a third parry beneficiary under this Agreement. 8.6 Covenants. The provisions of this Agreement shall constitute mutual covenants which shall run with the land comprising the Site for the benefit thereof, and for the benefit of City, and the burdens and benefits hereof shall bind and inure to the benefit of each of the Parties hereto and all successors in interest to the Parties hereto for the term of this Agreement. 8.7 Non -liability of City Officers and Employ No official, officer, employee, agent or representative of City, acting in his/her official capacity, shall be personally liable to Developer, or any successor or assign, for any loss, costs, damage, claim, liability, or judgment, arising out of or connection to this Agreement, or for any act or omission on the part of City. 8.8 Covenant Aizainst Discrimination. Developer and City covenant and agree, for themselves and their respective successors and assigns, that there shall be no discrimination against, or segregation of, any person or group or persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry, or any other impermissible classification, in the performance of this Agreement. Developer shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.). 8.9 No Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought and referring expressly to this Section. No delay or omission by either Parry in exercising any right or power accruing upon non-compliance or failure to perform by the other Party under any of the provisions of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof, except as expressly provided herein. No waiver by either Party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other Parry shall be construed or deemed a waiver of any succeeding breach or nonperformance of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof. 8.10 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, to the extent that the invalidity or unenforceability does not impair the application of this Agreement as intended by the Parties. 8.11 Cooperation in Carrying Out Agreement. Each Party shall take such actions and execute and deliver to the other all such further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement in order -30- 637 to provide and secure to the other Party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder. 8.12 Estoppel Certificate. Either Party may, at any time, deliver written notice to any other Party requesting such Party to certify in writing that, to the best knowledge of the certifying Party, (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, (iii) the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, describing the nature and amount of any such defaults, and (iv) any other reasonable information requested. A Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within ten (10) days following approval of the proposed estoppel certificate by the City Attorney, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Development Director are each authorized to sign and deliver an estoppel certificate on behalf of City. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgagees. 8.13 Construction. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either Party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction that might otherwise apply. As used in this Agreement, and as the context may require, the singular includes the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender includes the feminine and vice versa. 8.14 Recordation. k This Agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder of Riverside County at Developer's cost, if any, within the period required by Government Code Section 65868.5. Amendments approved by the Parties, and any cancellation or termination of this Agreement, shall be similarly recorded. 8.15 Captions and References. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Agreement are solely for convenience of reference, and shall be disregarded in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement. Reference herein to a paragraph or exhibit are the paragraphs, subparagraphs and exhibits of this Agreement. 8.16 Time. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof as to which time is an element. -31- 638 8.17 Recitals & Exhibits Incorporated; Entire Agreement. The Recitals to this Agreement and all of the exhibits and attachments to this Agreement are, by this reference, incorporated into this Agreement and made a part hereof. This Agreement, including all Exhibits attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and this Agreement supersedes all previous negotiations, discussions and agreements between the Parties, and no parole evidence of any prior or other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof. 8.18 Exhibits. Exhibits "A" -"H" to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated herein in their entirety, whether or not such exhibits are attached hereto in full. Said exhibits are identified as follows: A Legal Description of Site B Site Map C Project Design Features D. Mitigation Monitoring Program E. Conditions of Approval F. Compliance Certificate G. Chapter 3.25 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (as of Effective Date) H. Schedule of Performance And Phasing Plan 8.19 Counterpart Signature Pages. For convenience the Parties may execute and acknowledge this agreement in counterparts and when the separate signature pages are attached hereto, shall constitute one and the same complete Agreement. 8.20 Authority to Execute; Representations and Warranties. Developer warrants and represents that (i) it is duly organized and existing, (ii) it is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, Developer is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) Developer's entering into and performance of its obligations set forth in this Agreement do not violate any provision of any other agreement to which Developer is bound, and (v) except for the threat of litigation from individuals and organizations who made comments on the EIR or otherwise exhausted their administrative remedies prior to the close of the public hearings on the Project Approvals, there is no existing or threatened litigation or legal proceeding of which Developer is aware which could prevent Developer from entering into or performing its covenants and obligations set forth in this -32- 639 Agreement. City warrants and represents that the person or persons executing this Agreement on its behalf have been duly authorized to execute this Agreement and bind the City to all covenants and obligations set forth in this Agreement. 8.21 City Approvals and Actions. Whenever a reference is made in this Agreement to an action or approval to be undertaken by the City Manager, his or her authorized designee is authorized to act on behalf of the City unless specifically provided otherwise or the law otherwise requires. 8.22 Governing Law; Litigation Matters. The internal laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement without regard to conflicts of law principles. Any action at law or in equity brought by either Party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing, or interpreting the validity of this Agreement or any provision hereof shall be brought in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside, or such other appropriate court in said county, and the Parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal, or change of venue to any other court. Service of process on City shall be made in accordance with California law. Service of process on Developer shall be made in any manner permitted by California law and shall be effective whether served inside or outside of California. In the event of any action between the Parties hereto seeking enforcement of any of the terms of this Agreement or otherwise arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation shall be awarded, in addition to such relief to which such Party is entitled, its reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and litigation costs and expenses. 8.23 No Brokers. Each of the City and the Developer represents to the other parry that it has not engaged the services of any finder or broker and that it is not liable for any real estate commissions, broker's fees, or finder's fees which may accrue by means of this Agreement, and agrees to hold harmless the other party from such commissions or fees as are alleged to be due from the parry making such representations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Developer and City have executed this Agreement as of the Reference Date. "DEVELOPER" CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Its: -33- 640 ATTEST: Monika Radeva City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP William H. Ihrke City Attorney "CITY" CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation By: Name: Jon McMillen Title: City Manager -34- 641 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SITE (Attached) EXHIBIT "A" J 642 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED LA QUINTA, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL A: PARCEL "B" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2006-462, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF LA QUINTA DECEMBER 07, 2006 BEING: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, S.B.M. IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND PARCEL "D" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2002-930, RECORDED FEBRUARY 13, 2003, AS DOCUMENT NO. 2003-102524, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE SOUTH 89° 56'35" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 28, A DISTANCE OF 499.01 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 03'25" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 261.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 580 09'44" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 765.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 77° 42' 02" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 176.74 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "D" AND THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 2455.00 FEET FROM WHICH A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 770 42'23" EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20° 10'55", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 864.75 FEET; TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2345.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 650 20'50", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 2674.53 FEET; TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2455.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 200 25'31", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 875.17 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 28 AND THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "D"; THENCE NORTH 00° 17,44" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 28 AND THE PARCEL LINE OF SAID PARCEL "D", A DISTANCE OF 2104.91 TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE SOUTH 89° 30' 09" EAST ALONG SAID PARCEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 05'52" EAST ALONG SAID PARCEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1326.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'30'56" WEST ALONG SAID PARCEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE NORTH 89° 54'54" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1322.31 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 000 09'14" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1325.69 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF MADISON STREET, VACATED BY SAID CITY ON JANUARY 07, 2003 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2003-003, A COPY OF WHICH RECORDED APRIL 30, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2014-0157740 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AND WHICH WOULD BY OPERATION OF LAW REVERT TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. APN: 766-070-012-5, 764-210-007-9, 764-210-028, 764-210-029, 764-200-076-0 EXHIBIT "A" 643 EXHIBIT "A" (Continued) PARCEL B: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, THE SOUTHERLY 180.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, EXCEPT THE WEST 820.00 FEET THEREOF AND THE SOUTHERLY 180.00 FEET OF THE WEST 820.00 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, ALL IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF INCLUDED WITHIN 58TH AVENUE. TOGETHER WITH THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF MADISON STREET, VACATED BY SAID CITY ON JANUARY 07, 2003 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2003-003, A COPY OF WHICH RECORDED APRIL 30, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2014-0157740 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AND WHICH WOULD BY OPERATION OF LAW REVERT TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. APN: 766-070-003-7.006-0 PARCEL C: THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, MINERAL, HYDROCARBON AND KINDRED SUBSTANCES IN AND UNDER SAID PROPERTY, WITHOUT RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY. APN: 766-080-001-6, 002-7 PARCEL D: THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF LAND LYING IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE NORTH 00°07'45" WEST, ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, 287.38 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A CURVE; THENCE 94.73 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 910.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°57'51" WHOSE CHORD BEARS SOUTH 66004'50" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 94.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 69°03'45" EAST, 679.03 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 89029'45" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY, 720.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN 60TH AVENUE. APN: 766-080-005-0 EXHIBIT "A" 644 PARCEL E: THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN. TOGETHER WITH THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF MADISON STREET, VACATED BY SAID CITY ON JANUARY 07, 2003 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2003-003, A COPY OF WHICH RECORDED APRIL 30, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2014-0157740 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AND WHICH WOULD BY OPERATION OF LAW REVERT TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. APN: 766-080-004-9 PARCEL F: PARCEL A OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2006-462, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF LA QUINTA DECEMBER 7, 2006, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF PARCEL D OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2002-390 RECORDED FEBRUARY 13, 2003 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2003102524 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WHICH IS INCLUDED WITHIN SAID PARCEL A, ALL OF WHICH IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE SOUTH 890 56'35" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 499.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 000 03'25" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 261.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 58° 08'44" EAST A DISTANCE OF 765.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 770 42'02" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 176.74 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL D AND THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2455.00 FEET FROM WHICH A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 770 42' 23" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 000 14'26" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 10.31 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE NORTH 000 05'52" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 616.74 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE NORTH 890 56'35" WEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 28, A DISTANCE OF 822.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 766-070-014 EXHIBIT "A" 645 EXHIBIT `B" SITE MAP (Attached) EXHIBIT `B" 646 ANDALU51A AT CORAL MOUNTAIN: 5PECIFiC PLAN (03.067 AMD. Vj Coloriworie Planning Area Land flee Land Area{Acres} PA III Rewderaial 191.8 AC. PA V Neighborhood Cornmerval 7,7 AC - C.PAA RA A Go1FCour5e 184.9 AC. Total Area 384.4 AC. Sourew MSA Consulting, 7rlG I I- MSA- C C ,MSA_CC NSU LTiNG_!`__ EXHIBIT "B" CONCEPTUAL LAND USE MAP 647 EXHIBIT "C" PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES (Attached) EXHIBIT "C" y 648 DRAFT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES Coral Mountain Resort, La Quinta CA Exhibit C DRAFT Project Design Features Air Quality The project incorporates the following design features and attributes for promoting energy efficiency and sustainability, which shall be enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement. The following PDFs were accounted for in CalEEMod to reduce emissions associated with each applicable subcategory: • Pedestrian connections shall be provided to surrounding areas consistent with the City's General Plan. Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. The project would provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project would minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. • Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non -auto modes of transport. For example, when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as retail and office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her trip needs. A description of diverse uses for urban and suburban areas is provided below • The project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Improved street network characteristics within a neighborhood include street accessibility, usually measured in terms of average block size, proportion of four- way intersections, or number of intersections per square mile. Design is also measured in terms of sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian -oriented environments from auto -oriented environments. • Commute Trip Reduction Program is a multi -strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures. It is presented as a means of preventing double - counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reductions that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a voluntary program. • Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks. Coral Mountain Resort Exhibit C 1 March 2022 649 EXHIBIT C— DRAFT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES • The project will design building shells and building components, such as windows; roof systems: • electrical and lighting systems: and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards which results in 30% less energy for non-residential buildings and 53% less energy for residential use due to lighting upgrades. • The project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development. • Using electricity generated from photovoltaic (PV) systems displaces electricity demand which would ordinarily be supplied by the local utility. Since zero GHG emissions are associated with electricity generation from PV systems, the GHG emissions reductions from this PDF are equivalent to the emissions that would have been produced had electricity been supplied by the local utility. A minimum of 15% of the project's electricity demand will be generated on-site. • In order to reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills, the project would be required to implement a 65% waste diversion as required by AB 939. The following PDFs are part of the project, but no numeric credit has been taken for their implementation to assure a conservative analysis: • Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, and thus a decrease in VMT. The project will include a ride -sharing program as well as a permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement. The project will promote ride -sharing programs through a multi -faceted approach such as: • Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles • Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride -sharing vehicles • Providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides • The project will implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information • sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may include: • New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options • Event promotions • Publications • Specified use of Energy Star appliances. • Installation of water -efficient plumbing fixtures. • Installation of tankless water heater systems. • Installation of light -emitting diode (LED) technology within homes. Coral Mountain Resort Exhibit C 2 March 2022 650 EXHIBIT C— DRAFT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES • Use of recycled water for common area landscape irrigation. • Use of drought -tolerant plants in landscape design. • Installation of water -efficient irrigation systems with smart sensor controls. • Lighting sources contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that powers these lights. Public street and area lighting include: streetlights, pedestrian pathway lights, area lighting for parks and parking lots, and outdoor lighting around public buildings. Lighting design should consider the amount of light required for the area intended to be lit. Lumens are the measure of the amount of light perceived by the human eye. Different light fixtures have different efficacies or the amount of lumens produced per watt of power supplied. This is different than efficiency, and it is important that lighting improvements are based on maintaining the appropriate lumens per area when applying this measure. Installing more efficacious lamps will use less electricity while producing the same amount of light, and therefore reduces the associated indirect GHG emissions. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The project incorporates the following design features and attributes for promoting energy efficiency and sustainability, which shall be enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement. The following PDFs were accounted for in CalEEMod to reduce emissions associated with each applicable subcategory: • Pedestrian connections shall be provided to surrounding areas consistent with the City's General Plan. Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. The project would provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project would minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. • Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non -auto modes of transport. For example, when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as retail and office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her trip needs. A description of diverse uses for urban and suburban areas is provided below • The project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Improved street network characteristics within a neighborhood include street accessibility, usually measured in terms of average block size, proportion of four- way intersections, or number of intersections per square mile. Design is also measured in Coral Mountain Resort Exhibit C 3 March 2022 651 EXHIBIT C— DRAFT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES terms of sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian -oriented environments from auto -oriented environments. • Voluntary Commute Trip Reduction Program — A multi -strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures. It is presented as a means of preventing double -counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reductions that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a voluntary program. • Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks. • The project will design building shells and building components, such as windows; roof systems: electrical and lighting systems: and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards which are expected to result in 30% less energy use for non- residential buildings and 53% less energy use for residential use due to lighting upgrades. • The project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development. • Using electricity generated from photovoltaic (PV) systems displaces electricity demand which would ordinarily be supplied by the local utility. Since zero GHG emissions are associated with electricity generation from PV systems, the GHG emissions reductions from this PDF are equivalent to the emissions that would have been produced had electricity been supplied by the local utility. A minimum of 15% of the project's electricity demand will be generated on-site. • In order to reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills, the project would be required to implement a 65% waste diversion as required by AB 939. The following PDFs are part of the project, but no numeric credit has been taken for their implementation to provide a conservative analysis: • Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, and thus a decrease in VMT. The project will include a ride -sharing program as well as a permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement. The project will promote ride -sharing programs through a multi -faceted approach such as: • Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles • Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride -sharing vehicles Coral Mountain Resort Exhibit C 4 March 2022 652 EXHIBIT C— DRAFT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES • Providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides • The project will implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may include: • New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options • Event promotions • Publications • Specified use of Energy Star appliances. • Installation of water -efficient plumbing fixtures. • Installation of tankless water heater systems. • Installation of light -emitting diode (LED) technology within homes. • Use of recycled water for common area landscape irrigation. • Use of drought -tolerant plants in landscape design. • Installation of water -efficient irrigation systems with smart sensor controls. • Lighting sources contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that powers these lights. Public street and area lighting includes: streetlights, pedestrian pathway lights, area lighting for parks and parking lots, and outdoor lighting around public buildings. Lighting design should consider the amount of light required for the area intended to be lit. Lumens are the measure of the amount of light perceived by the human eye. Different light fixtures have different efficacies or the amount of lumens produced per watt of power supplied. This is different than efficiency, and it is important that lighting improvements are based on maintaining the appropriate lumens per area when applying this measure. Installing more efficacious lamps will use less electricity while producing the same amount of light, and therefore reduces the associated indirect GHG emissions. Energy Resources See PDFs listed under Greenhouse Gas Emissions, above, as they are applicable to energy consumption. Energy-saving and sustainable design features, as well as operational programs would be incorporated. Because these features/attributes are integral to the project, and/or are regulatory requirements, they are not considered to be mitigation measures. The project will require submittal to the appropriate agencies discussed in this section for review and approval of on-site design for circulation, building standards and utility installation. The following PDFs are part of the project; however, per the GHG Report, no numeric credit has been taken for their implementation in order to produce a conservative analysis: Coral Mountain Resort Exhibit C 5 March 2022 653 EXHIBIT C— DRAFT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES • Specified use of Energy Star appliances • Installation of water -efficient plumbing fixtures • Installation of tankless water heaters • Installation of light -emitting diode (LED) technology within homes • Use of recycled water (non -potable) for common area landscape irrigation • Use of drought -tolerant plants in landscape design • Installation of water -efficient irrigation systems with smart sensor controls • Installation of photovoltaic (PV) systems Noise Six -Foot Perimeter Wall to Reduce Arterial Roadway Noise A six-foot perimeter wall will be developed along the northern and eastern property boundaries, adjacent to the proposed Low Density Residential Planning Area (PA II). The six-foot perimeter walls will be located adjacent to PA II in order to protect the proposed onsite residential uses from off-site traffic noise by implementing improvements that diminish noise levels. Perimeter walls will be developed along the southern and western property boundaries as a design requirement of the City and in conformance with Section 3.5.1 of the Development Agreement. The Noise Study determined that the barriers shall provide a weight of at least four pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line -of -sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways. The barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. Because this requirement was assumed in the Noise Study analysis, and to assure effective mitigation of noise from the project, Mitigation Measure N0I-5 is provided in Section 4.11, Noise, in the Draft EIR to assure the proper construction of perimeter walls. This project Development Agreement will ensure that the project design features and mitigation will be enforceable by the City. Public Services The proposed project will be required to comply with existing regulations and standards (identified in Section 4.12, Public Services, of the Draft EIR) to ensure that the project's potential impacts associated with public facilities and services related to fire and police emergency and non -emergency services, as well as impacts to schools, do not result in significant impacts. Typical for residential communities in the City of La Quinta, the project and residential areas shall be gated, thus increasing community security and minimizing potential crimes, and consistent with standard operations of resort communities, the project will incorporate private security Coral Mountain Resort Exhibit C 6 March 2022 654 EXHIBIT C— DRAFT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES services to maximize security of the overall project. Additionally, lighting features throughout the project will enhance security and maximize visibility within the project including streets, intersections, and other crosswalks. Transportation Project Design Features (PDF) are incorporated that encourage the use of alternative transportation measures including pedestrian and bicycle travel. The project will include design elements such as sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian - oriented environments from auto -oriented environments. The project will provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project would minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. The project includes sidewalk connections, particularly to / from the retail areas interacting with residential and resort uses on-site. Project Design Features for VMT Reduction Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies were evaluated for the purpose of reducing VMT impacts determined to be potentially significant. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, (CAPCOA) 2010 provides guidance for evaluating the potential reduction in VMT expected for individual measures. The project setting best reflects what CAPCOA refers to as a suburban place type because it is characterized by dispersed, low-density, single -use automobile dependent land use patterns. The maximum reduction expected when combining multiple mitigation strategies for the suburban place type is 10 percent and requires a project to contain a diverse land use mix, workforce housing, and project -specific transit, according to CAPCOA. The project incorporates design features and attributes promoting trip reduction. Because these features/attributes are integral to the project, and/or are regulatory requirements, they are not considered to be mitigation measures. These features are considered after the VMT data is extracted from the traffic model. Project VMT is reduced by the following project design features/attributes, which are enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, and are anticipated to collectively reduce project home-based VMT by approximately 6%. • The placement of different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non - auto modes of transport. For example, when residential areas are in the same Coral Mountain Resort Exhibit C 7 March 2022 655 EXHIBIT C— DRAFT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES neighborhood as commercial and resort land uses, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her recreational and retail needs. The project's mixed-use environment could provide for a potential reduction in project residential VMT of 3% according to CAPCOA guidance. • The project includes improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Recognized improved street network characteristics within the project include sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian -oriented environments from auto -oriented environments. The project provides a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project minimizes barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. The project includes sidewalk connections, particularly to / from the retail areas resulting in interaction with residential, retail, and recreational uses on-site. The project's implementation of this measure is anticipated to result in a potential reduction in project residential VMT of 2% according to CAPCOA guidance. • The project will implement marketing strategies to optimize on-site resort and residential uses. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful trip reduction strategies. Marketing strategies may include: o Resident member benefits that include use of the recreational amenities o Publications The project's implementation of this measure could provide for a potential reduction in project residential VMT of 1% according to CAPCOA guidance. Coral Mountain Resort Exhibit C 8 March 2022 656 EXHIBIT "D" MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Attached) [to be inserted] y EXHIBIT "D" 657 EXHIBIT `B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Attached) [to be inserted] I EXHIBIT `B" 658 EXHIBIT "F" COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE (CM Wave Development LLC, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) The undersigned, CM Wave Development LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Developer"), pursuant to that certain Development Agreement dated , 2022, (the "Development Agreement"), by and among Developer and the City of La Quinta, a California municipal corporation and charter city (the "City") by its signature below hereby certifies to the City, for the City's reliance that: 1. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Development Agreement; 2. The undersigned is familiar with the certifications and representations set forth in this Compliance Certificate; 3. Developer has performed and complied with its obligations under the Development Agreement to be performed or complied with by it on or prior to the date hereof. 4. [CITY MAY INSERT ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUING BUILDING PERMIT]. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Compliance Certificate is executed effective the day of , under penalty of perjury under the laws of California. CM Wave Development LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Its: By: Its: EXHIBIT "F" 659 EXHIBIT "G" CHAPTER 3.25 OF LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE AS OF EFFECTIVE DATE (for reference only) (Attached) [to be inserted] EXHIBIT "G" ..e EXHIBIT "H" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE AND PHASING PLAN (Attached) J EXHIBIT "H" 661 PROJECT COMPONENT LAND USE START COMPLETION* MASTER SITE IMPROVEMENTS - Backbone N.A. Developer "Backbone" improvements, including mass and rough grading, and Infrastructure, including streets, utilities, and perimeter landscaping, Madison Entry Facility Within 18 months of Vesting Date 3 years after Start Date PLANNING AREA III RESIDENTIAL Phase 1— Parcels A, B, C, G, including "in -tract" developer master site improvements — utilities, streets, landscape; Within 36 months of Vesting Date 2 years after Start Date Amenities, including Main Club, Sports & Fitness Within 36 months of Vesting Date 2 years after Start Date Golf Maintenance Facility; Within 36 months of Vesting Date 2 years after Start Date Phase 2 — Parcels D, E, F, including "in -tract" developer master site improvements — utilities, streets, landscape; Within 48 months of Vesting Date 2 years after Start Date Phase 3 — Parcels U, V, including "in -tract" developer master site improvements — utilities, streets, landscape; Within 60 months of Vesting Date 2 years after Start Date Phase 4 — Parcels R, S, T, including "in -tract" developer master site improvements — utilities, streets, landscape; Within 72 months of Vesting Date 2 years after Start Date Phase 5 — Parcels H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, including "in -tract" developer master site improvements — utilities, streets, landscape; Within 84 months of Vesting Date 2 years after Start Date Amenities at Coral Mountain, Bike Pump Track, observatory, gathering and dining areas, trail network completion Within 84 months of Vesting Date 2 years after Start Date PLANNING AREA V NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL Site Improvements and 5,000 SF market (including non- conditioned outdoors ace Within 84 months of Vesting Date 2 years after Start Date PLANNING AREA VI GOLF COURSE Phase 1 — Grading, Golf Course Construction Within 20 months of Vesting Date 2 years after Start Date *Completion defined as 70% of C -of -O's issued, and are the outside deadlines permissible under this Agreement, subject to the terns of this Agreement. Note: If Developer provides evidence reasonably satisfactory to the City that then existing market conditions do not allow for the development on economically feasible terms and orderly absorption of such product type to the point of completion as specified above, then such period shall be extended for up to five 1 -year periods to be approved by the City Manager. **Vesting Date is defined as the later of (i) the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, and (ii) the running of all applicable statute of limitations and referendum petition deadlines with no legal challenges or petitions having been filed or submitted, or if filed or submitted, successfully resolved to the satisfaction of Developer and City. EXHIBIT "H" 662 EXHIBIT "H" z A 663 V 6 c � ❑ U b C14 ni i� o CD ❑ C W 4 m ❑ t1 f4 o _ rC � `� ` � + ❑ � — Ya Y _ E : 0 O U a c LjC ? ❑ ? L -�2 .0 O t Y O T] a 2 Ci L.7 ❑ ❑ oc Q4D w LL a- ❑' � m m z tb Ew E m = ❑ — (V r� c o 7 e m .0 o Q E o cm a U `o a a a a 8 a4a 8 8D0 a�Fl QQ4 $ O a 000 •4 V v v I IiNI ili ciH Ii EXHIBIT "H" z A 663 V EXHIBIT "H" z A 663 664 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX EXHIBIT F CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000; ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000; SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-0003; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 (37815); DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 PROJECT: CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN ADOPTED: PAGE 1 OF 3 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. All the following approvals shall comply with all applicable conditions and mitigation measures: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2019-0010 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000 ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-0003 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 (37815) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Design and Development Director shall adjudicate the conflict by determining the precedence. 3. Within 30 days of the approval of Specific Plan Amendment 2023-0003, the applicant shall provide the City with a final amended Specific Plan in PDF format, with all redlines converted to final text. 4. Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code §§ 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.laquintaca.gov. 5. Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005 shall expire in three years from approval date, unless recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code 9.200.080 (Permit expiration and time extensions). 6. Prior to recordation of the Tentative Tract Map by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances from the following agencies, if required: Riverside County Fire Marshal La Quinta Design and Development Department La Quinta Public Works Department 665 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000; ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000; SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-0003; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 (37815); DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 PROJECT: CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN ADOPTED: PAGE 2 OF 3 Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. 7. Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005 is for financing purposes. 8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. 9. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual consultant's fees incurred by the City for engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any documents or instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. 10. In conjunction with the recordation of the Final Map, Developer shall record a covenant assuring the participation of each and every landowner in contributing its fair share of the cost of construction of a fire station to serve the project. The covenant shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. PROPERTY RIGHTS 11. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services, graffiti removal, and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 12. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals from the master developer over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing parking, access aisles that access public streets and open space/ drainage facilities of the development. Said rights shall also include reciprocal access and reciprocal parking rights over all parcels within Tentative Tract Map 37815. ... PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2024 -XXX CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000; ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000; SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-0003; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 (37815); DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 PROJECT: CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN ADOPTED: PAGE 3 OF 3 13. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas on the Final Map. 14. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS 15. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate mylars of the Final Map. MAINTENANCE 16. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of common areas, perimeter landscaping up to the curb, access drives, sidewalks, and stormwater BMPs. FEES AND DEPOSITS 17. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 18. The applicant shall either dedicate land or pay an in -lieu fee for parks or recreational facilities in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 13.48 (Park Dedications (Quimby Act)) prior to recordation of Final Maps for future residential tracts. ..A ATTACHMENT 1 PROJECT INFORMATION CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2019-0010 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000 ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-0003 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 APPLICANT: CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT LLC REQUEST: CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO AMEND THE CONFIGURATION OF GOLF COURSE AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LANDS ON LANDS WEST OF MADISON STREET; SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE ANDALUSIA SPECIFIC PLAN TO MODIFY ACREAGE FOR GOLF COURSE AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE WEST SIDE OF MADISON STREET TO ALLOW 750 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A GOLF COURSE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR FINANCING PURPOSES ONLY TO SUBDIVIDE 387± ACRES INTO 7 LOTS; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEVELOPER RELATING TO THIS PROJECT. LOCATION: CEQA: GENERALPLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET, AND NORTH OF AVENUE 60 ALTERNATIVE 2 OF THE CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2021020310) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, OPEN SPACE RECREATION AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, OPEN SPACE GOLF AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, OPEN SPACE GOLF/VACANT LANDS, EXISTING COUNTRY CLUB SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/VACANT LAND, EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/EXISTING COUNTRY CLUB WEST: OPEN SPACE/CORAL MOUNTAIN, VACANT LANDS ..: ATTACHMENT 2 FINDINGS Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 1. That Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. 2. The currently proposed project is consistent with Alternative No. 2 analyzed in the EIR. 3. Alternative No. 2 has the potential to significantly impact aesthetic resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled. 4. Impacts of Alternative No. 2 on all other environmental issue areas can be mitigated to less than significant levels with incorporation of the mitigation measures contained in the EIR and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 5. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, and finds that it adequately described and addresses the environmental effects of the project. General Plan Amendment 2023-1000 1. The map amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan insofar as the Amendment makes no changes to the land use designations allowed within the lands west of Madison Street, south of Avenue 58 and north of Avenue 60, as shown in Exhibit A, and only reallocates their distribution as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Land Use Summarv* Land Use Zoning Existing Proposed Change Acres Acres acres General Neighborhood 8.4 7.7 -0.7 Commercial Commercial CN Low Density Low Density 204.2 191.8 -12.4 Residential Residential RL Open Space Golf Course (GC) 171.9 187.5 +15.6 Recreation *Note that Existing acreage is calculated on net (384.5 acres) and Proposed is calculated on gross 387 acres). 2. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare because the community will be entirely self-contained and of high quality, and will include homes, a golf course and perimeter improvements and streets consistent and complementary to improvements surrounding the site. 3. The Land Use designations are suitable and appropriate for the subject property, as they are identical to those currently allowed on the affected parcels. 4. Approval of the General Plan Amendment is warranted because the configuration of uses has marginally changed, and consistency with the conceptual plan for the project is required. Zone Change 2023-1000 1. The zone map change is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, as described above. 2. Approval of the zone map change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare because the community will be entirely self-contained and of high quality, and will include homes, a golf course and perimeter improvements and streets consistent and complementary to improvements surrounding the site. 3. The zone map change is compatible with the zoning on adjacent properties as it continues the pattern of master planned communities envisioned in the General Plan for southern areas of La Quinta. 4. The zone map change is suitable and appropriate for the subject property because the property is essentially flat, and the same land uses as currently permitted will be developed. 5. Approval of the zone map change is warranted because the configuration of uses has marginally changed, and consistency with the conceptual plan for the project is required. Specific Plan 2023-1000 (Amendment No. 5 to Specific Plan 2003-037, Andalusia) 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, insofar as the land uses in the west side of the Specific Plan will continue to develop with the land uses shown in the General Plan Land Use Map, and consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. 2. Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, as development 670 already occurs within this Specific Plan, and its build out will be consistent with that development. 3. Specific Plan 2003-037, Amendment No. 5 is compatible with zoning on surrounding properties, which also allows residential units and golf course uses. 4. Specific Plan 2003-037, Amendment No. 5, is suitable and appropriate for the subject property, as development is consistent with the east side of the Specific Plan area and will continue to build out as originally intended. Tentative Tract Maa 2023-0005 1. The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as amended, and implements the Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Open Space land use designations allowed on the site. 2. The design and improvement of the Tentative Tract Map for financing purposes only are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan with the implementation of recommended conditions of approval. 3. The design of the Tentative Tract Map is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Coral Mountain Resort EIR found that impacts of Alternative 2 to the environment could be reduced to less than significant levels, with the exception of aesthetics, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled. The City has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts to these resources, as identified in the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. 4. The design of the Tentative Tract Mapare not likely to cause serious public health problems, insofar as the map is for financing purposes only, and will be required to comply with all laws, standards and requirements associated with sanitary sewer collection, water quality and other public health issues in subsequent maps, site development permits and other approvals necessary for development of the land. 5. The design and improvements required for the Tentative Tract Map will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. All roadway improvements, easements, if any and surrounding improvements will be completed to City standards. 6. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 13 of the City's Subdivision Regulations Code, minimum lot area requirements, and other applicable provisions of Title 9 of the City's Zoning Code, and the Subdivision Map Act. 671 7. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Development Agreement 2023-1000 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan and the Andalusia Specific Plan, Amendment No. 5. 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed in the Andalusia Specific Plan, and implements the Specific Plan's design features. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices because it will create a revenue stream to assure that public safety costs incurred by the City for the project will be paid for by the project. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare, as it provides for the long term ordered development of a master planned community. 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values insofar as it will ensure that development occurring on the site will generate revenues and assure high quality development. 6. The Development Agreement will have a positive fiscal impact on the city by paying mitigation fees for services it requires, and additional Transient Occupancy Tax and Sales Tax revenues. 672 ATTACHMENT 3 .ofYl X53 _ --.. _ .. ...-- - - - •-- - AVENUE 58_ _ ` .� ..w w.. w.. '.r4�...; — til - � - w�` I ►t � s. - I OtTPROJSITE I. 4 � IL I I --- AVENUE 60 ------ AL — __AL Vicinity Map N 673 PUBLIC COMMENT ATTACHMENT 4 674 Tania Flores From: Nick Blodgett <nick.cory1 @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 8:44 AM To: Tania Flores; Danny Castro; Carlos Flores; Consulting Planner Subject: Support for Coral Mountain Project Some people who received this message don't often get email from nick.coryl@gmail.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Nick and Marta Blodgett are in full support of the proposed Coral Mountain Development. Prior to my retirement, I worked for Discovery Land Company for 20 years, including The Hideaway and The Madison Club. As a result, I am very familiar with the development process. John Gamlin and the Coral Mountain team have developed a totally unique master planned community that will certainly be a very successful project, and will add tremendous value to Coachella Valley and specifically to La Quinta. 675 Tania Flores From: Randall Bone <rbone@sunriseco.com> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 10:33 AM To: Cheri Flores; Danny Castro; Tania Flores; Consulting Planner Subject: ACC Support letter Some people who received this message don't often get email from rbone@sunriseco.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear City of La Quinta Planning Commission and Staff, Sunrise Company supports the Coral Mountain resort development in La Quinta. Sunrise Company has been developing master -planned communities in the Desert for over 60 years. We are currently developing Andalusia Country Club in La Quinta and Toscana Country Club in Indian Wells. We are not speaking on behalf of individual Andalusia Country Club residents but on behalf of Sunrise Company. Our main priority is ensuring the long-term success of Andalusia, both the Club and the residential community. After studying the new plan, we believe it meets the feedback from City Council that the plan be consistent with the General Plan. We support the new plan and believe Coral Mountain will enhance the surrounding communities and the overall La Quinta community. The Coral Mountain community will also bring economic vitality to La Quinta for decades to come. Thank you for your due diligence on this and all other developments. Randall Bone Chief Executive Officer Sunrise Company 676 Tania Flores From: eckman.chuck@gmail.com Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 5:49 PM To: Linda Evans; Planning WebMail; Danny Castro; Cheri Flores; Jon McMillen Cc: jgamlin@coralmountain.com; jjenkins@pgawest.com; jerry.mcdonald@managementtrust.com; bdobbs@pgawest.com Subject: Coral Mountain Revised Proposal Attachments: Coral Mountain.pdf [Some people who received this message don't often get email from eckman.chuck@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Please share with City of La Quinta: Planning Commission City Council Thankyou. Chuck Eckman eckman.chuck@gmail.com (760) 895-5554 677 January 12, 2024 Mayor Linda Evans City of La Quinta Planning Commission City of La Quinta City Council Dear Mayor Evans, Planning Commission & City Council Members I have today had the opportunity to meet with John Gamlin, President, CM Wave Development, relative the proposed plans associated with the updated Coral Mountain Development. I write to you this evening as 10+ year resident of the City of La Quinta - noting that I additionally serve in the capacity of: President of PGA WEST Fairways Homeowners Association, Director of the PGA WEST Master Association and as a Member of the Club at PGA WEST. My desire with this communication is to STRONGLY encourage the City of La Quinta to fully support and APPROVE the proposed development at Coral Mountain. I believe the proposed plans reflect the HIGH QUALITY appropriate for this premier location and that this development will serve to continue your path which has continually served to elevate La Quinta as an elite community within the Coachella Valley. While I am but one voice in our community - I see this development as hitting all the key points relative what makes for a perfect combination: - Proven and accomplished developers - Strong financial backing - Consistency of pre-existing planning - Attraction to a highly desirable demographic - Healthful, sporting, environmentally friendly, youthful, family - design ethos It's just a great fit and I could not be more supportive. I hope you all concur - and with your support - you approve Coral Mountain to become another unique community within La Quinta. Respectfully, Chuck Eckman President, PGA WEST, Fairways Homeowners Association Director, PGA WEST, Master Association La Quinta Resident: 81-380 Golf View Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 678 Tania Flores From: Kristin Hermann <kmhermann@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 11:20 AM To: Cheri Flores; Consulting Planner; Danny Castro; Tania Flores Subject: Coral Mountain Some people who received this message don't often get email from kmhermann@gmail.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear Planning Commissioners and City Staff, I understand that Coral Mountain's redesign will be coming before you later in the month. While I am sorry that the wave park for this location was denied, I am excited to see the project rework. I understand that it won't just be another golf course community, but it will also have a neighborhood commercial component to it as well as different sports amenities for the non -golfers in the neighborhood. While my husband and I are very happy in our home in Desert Club Estates, this community is piquing my interest for a potential move when it's ready! I encourage you to approve this project and allow it to go before City Council as soon as possible. Best regards, Kristin Moore Hermann kmhermannC ,mail.com 50905 Calle Quito, La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 880-2295 679 Tania Flores From: Cheryl Whitbread <cwhitbread@ezralow.com> on behalf of David Leff <DLeff@ezralow.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:16 PM To: Planning WebMail Subject: CM Wave Development LLC Some people who received this message don't often get email from dleff@ezralow.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear Committee, am a property owner in the LaQuinta area. I can't attend the public hearing on January 23rd, but after reading over the proposal for the development of CM Wave, we feel that it would be a great addition and an asset to the city. Thankyou, David Leff on behalf of Freedman/Leff Investment Partnership .:e Tania Flores From: Joan MacPherson <joan@joanmacpherson.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 11:15 AM To: Cheri Flores; Danny Castro; Tania Flores; Consulting Planner Subject: Coral Mountain project Some people who received this message don't often get email from joan@joanmacpherson.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear Ladies & Gentlemen, As a resident of Indian Wells and a Real Estate Broker who has worked in the City for over 30 years I wanted to indicate my support for the current version of the Coral Mountain development. The development seems to be in keeping with the General Plan and appears to be a well thought through with golf, housing and amenities that our seasonal and full- time buyers desire. I believe it will be an asset to this part of our beautiful city and hope that it will be approved to move forward. My best, Joan Joan MacPherson Broker Associate, LUXE Director DRE#00579442 Phone 760 779-5373 Web www.ioanmacpherson.com Email joan@joanmacpherson.com 74910 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210 681 Tania Flores From: Solis, Greg <greg@soliswealth.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 8:16 AM To: Cheri Flores; Danny Castro; Tania Flores; Consulting Planner Cc: jgamlin@coralmountain.com Subject: Coral Mountain Project Some people who received this message don't often get email from greg@soliswealth.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. I am writing to express my wholehearted support for the Coral Mountain project set for consideration on January 23rd. As Founder and CEO of Solis Wealth Management and a long-term resident of La Quinta, I find this project to be a commendable endeavor that promises to be a gem in La Quinta's development. Their attention to detail and commitment to a luxurious yet sustainable community make it worthy of approval. The inclusion of a surfable wave basin also adds an exciting dimension to Coral Mountain, reflecting a commitment to providing residents and visitors with unparalleled recreational opportunities, enhancing the community's allure. I urge the commission to consider the positive impact Coral Mountain will have on La Quinta and its residents. Approving this project will significantly contribute to our community's overall development and enhancement. Thank you for your time and consideration. I trust you will make the decision that best serves the interests of La Quinta and its residents. Best regards, Greg R. Solis, AIF® Founder and CEO CA Insurance License #0795867 LPL Financial Insurance Lic# 0518721 LPLIA Lic# OB91442 11%, WEALTH MANAGEMENT INC. Embracing Purpose I Impacting lives Our mission is to provide comprehensive wealth management at the highest level of excellence, competence and integrity to support our clients in accomplishing what they value most in life. We believe that our passion to serve our clients, each other and the community will have an everlasting positive impact on the world around us. .:. 78075 Main Street, Suite 204 La Quinta, CA 92253 P: 760-771-3339 F: 760-771-3181 Email: greg@soliswealth.com www.soliswealth.com MM Greg R Solis is a Registered Representative with securities and advisory services offered through LPL Financial, a registered investment advisor. Member FINRA/SIPC. The information contained in this email message is being transmitted to and is intended for the use of only the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby advised that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete. 683 POWERPOINTS PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23. 2024 Planning Commission Meeting January 23, 2024 5:00 p.m. *4 g -. �$1k�°' ° � • � moi,- °. � '�}� Planning Commission January 23, 2024 PH1 —Club at Coral Mountain General Plan Amendment 2023-1000, Zone Change 2023- 1000, Specific Plan Amendment 2023-0003, Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005, and Development Agreement 2023-1000 g k - {y ._ _ is yC • a . Background • Andalusia Specific Plan approved by County, annexed by City 20 years ago. • Coral Mountain Resort Project, including wave basin and hotel, denied by City Council September 2022. • New project modifies Specific Plan for west side (386 of the total 929 acres) • Specific Plan includes minor modifications relating to land use distribution and adds new Design Guidelines for contemporary architecture. Vicinity Map N,a Project Applications • General Plan Amendment — Map Only • Zone Change — Map Only • Specific Plan Amendment • Tentative Tract Map • Development Agreement General Plan Amendment Zone Change • Map amendment only. • 386 acres west of Madison. • Modifies the shape of the Low Density and Golf land use and reduces the Commercial acreage. Specific Plan Amendment • Only applies to the area west of Madison Street. • Modifies the acreage allocated to _ each Planning Area to match the GPA and ZC. • Updates text and maps.x T • Adds golf clubhouse and yard in PA III z (Residential)."`: • Limits commercial to 60,000 SF. r.. • Adds new Design Guidelines and Sheep Protection Plan for the west side. Specific Plan Land Use Plan 1� Tentative Tract Map • Map is for financing purposes only (no development can occur without further permits). • Subdivides entire 386 acres into 7 large lots. • Future maps and SDPs will include improvements. Development Agreement A contract between the applicant and the City that: • Guarantees the implementation of mitigation measures and conditions of approval. • Confirms STVRs for all residential units (already permitted in Specific Plan). • Establishes mitigation fees to cover costs of providing services to the project, tied to transient occupancy tax revenue. Environmental Impact Report • Draft EIR was available for public comments for 45 days. • Completed Response to Comments and Final EIR addressing nearly 100 comments. • When City Council denied the Previous Project, it also approved a CEQA Exemption, and the EIR was not certified. Environmental Impact Report The EIR included, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, five alternatives to the proposed Project: 1. No Project/No Build — the parcel remains in its current condition. 2. No Project/Existing Entitlements — the existing Specific Plan is implemented: 750 residential units, an 18 -hole golf course, and 8.4 acres of retail commercial at the northeast corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58. Environmental Impact Report 3. Reduced Density — 400 residential units, 100 hotel rooms, 78,000 square feet of commercial and the artificial surf basin. 4. Golf/Resort Hotel — 150 hotel rooms, resort commercial, an 18 -hole public golf course, and 600 residential units. 5. Lake Amenity/No Hotel — 750 housing units, 8.4 acres of commercial uses, and a 75 -acre lake which would be used for recreation. Environmental Impact Report • Current proposal is consistent with Alternative 2. • Additional analysis completed to confirm that the current Project would not have any more significant impacts than those analyzed under Alternative 2. • Alternative 2 and the current Project would have significant impacts related to: — Aesthetics: Views of Coral Mountain will be blocked from surrounding public vantage points. — Air Quality: operational emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. — Greenhouse Gases: emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. — Vehicle Miles Travelled: project trips would exceed the City's VMT per resident threshold. Environmental Impact Report • CEQA allows for the certification of an EIR for an Alternative. • Because aesthetics, air quality, GHG and VMT impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for City Council approval. Recommendation • Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council Council certify the Coral Mountain Resort Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2021020310) for Alternative No. 2 (EA2019-0010) and direct staff to prepare Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. • Adopt a resolution to recommend City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2023-1000, Zone Change 2023-1000, Specific Plan Amendment 2023-0003, Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005, and Development Agreement 2023-1000 subject to findings and conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23, 2024 17 POWERPOINTS APPLICANT PRESENTATION PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1: CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 2024 C O R A L M O U N T A I N CONCEPT MASTER PLAN City of La Quinta Planning Commission January 23, 2024 C/A,J/ MERIWETHER -,,//L- COUPAHIPS S General Plan & Zoning d LDR 4 2 CORAL MOUNTAIN PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE OS -R OPEN SPACE RECREATIO^1 CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NOTE - THIS GEPIERAL ALAN MAP _ AMENDMENT WILL ONL Y REFINE CK677N6 LAND USE BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE WEST TRACT OF SPECIFIC PLAN 03-057. ALL EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE WEST TRACT WILL REMAIN UNALTERED. GN "Moving color blobs around.' ExIsnNG ZONING GC GOLF COURSE CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL RL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED ZONING GC GOLF COURSE CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL RL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VOTE: TH15ZONING MAP AMENDMENT WILL ONLY REFINE EXISTING ZONE BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE WEST TRACT SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067. ALL EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS FOR THE WEST TRACT WILL REMAIN UNALTERED. r E?CiSTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE OS -R OPEN SPACE RECREATION a CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL 1 LDR LOW DEN5RY RESIDENTIAL 7 d LDR 4 2 CORAL MOUNTAIN PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE OS -R OPEN SPACE RECREATIO^1 CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NOTE - THIS GEPIERAL ALAN MAP _ AMENDMENT WILL ONL Y REFINE CK677N6 LAND USE BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE WEST TRACT OF SPECIFIC PLAN 03-057. ALL EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE WEST TRACT WILL REMAIN UNALTERED. GN "Moving color blobs around.' ExIsnNG ZONING GC GOLF COURSE CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL RL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED ZONING GC GOLF COURSE CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL RL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VOTE: TH15ZONING MAP AMENDMENT WILL ONLY REFINE EXISTING ZONE BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE WEST TRACT SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067. ALL EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS FOR THE WEST TRACT WILL REMAIN UNALTERED. CONCEPT MASTER PLAN V r.lith ❑»ani121 kplh Avenue LEGEND 11 Single Family Lot Residential *B.O. H. Option") 0 Commercial Corner 0 Project Entry (D Single Family Lot Homesites, Typ. Q B.Q.R./ CVWD Easement Q Cluster Residential Product 49 Active Sports a- Primary Club ' Galt Irrigation Lake f+/- 2 acres) -- Single Family Lot Residential *B.O.H. Option*) Q Coral Mountain Amenity 0 Activity Lake �+/- 10 acres) SWWfR SlRSET WINTER SUNSET Totentiaf B.C.H. Operations TBD* N N 1 „ 600'-0" Avenue (D 0 300' 600' 1200' 18 HOLE PREMIER GOLF COURSE GOLF COURSE • +181 ACRE 18 HOLE COURSE ° PRELIMINARY DESIGN PREPARED BY DAVID MCLAY KIDD - GOLF DESIGN ° DRIVING RANGE * PAR 3 SHORT COURSE INTERNAL PRIVATE TRAIL CROSSINGS * MULTI -MODAL CONNECTIVITY • COMFORT STATIONS • BACK OF HOUSE / GOLF OPERATIONS • PRIVATE COMMUNITY EVENTS • POP UP VENUES w - -�.f - All 4" , �Lv or� cj_ f7 . ... .... ... . 7 "lop ..... . . .. ... 0— 6 CORAL MOUNTAIN .... .... .... . V FA PLANNING & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE f 7 No or .0 qoF 40- AC olf Ir s • a. c� f I. .� -.rrr li=. TIl FTAoll S 1 �� 7r' !,+ .. ` • , tires .- 401 r i f•r i 4(f r Ise ` � _ _ ti F � � w yN • ,� s r 1 � . • I Ili- � ��'� � � � � ,. _.. •_ F - Oak- or e LAP c P -L• a , d air ^'� wpw All- 1 _ _ 4ft 44 k4W :'4w.ter b66.�:. EZ ..... ...... ------ ..... Tit W -APF a �mlmmftm 9 CORAL MOUNTAIN VITA PLANNING & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ® l� 4 10 I CORAL MOUNTAIN VITA PLANNING & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Estimated Development Timeline' 10 4� 4J� ,. ., SDPs for Golf Project ; City & Construction Golf Course First Phase Buildout — 7 - Approvals — Residential, Start — Q1 Opening — Residential — 10 years post - March 2024 TTM — Fall 2025 Spring 2026 2026/2027 construction 2024 start* --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 See Development Agreement for more specificity regarding development timeframes and phasing * Depending on market conditions 11 1 CORAL MOUNTAIN MERIWETHER C O M P A N I E S PUBLIC COMMENT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23. 2024 Tania Flores From: Bighorn Institute <bi@bighorninstitute.org> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 3:30 PM To: Tania Flores Subject: Written Comments -The Club at Coral Mountain Attachments: Coral Mountain comments_Bl.pdf You don't often get email from bi@bighorninstitute.org. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear Ms. Flores, Please find attached Bighorn Institute's comments forthe Planning Commission Meeting 1/23/2024 regarding Agenda Item 1, The Club at Coral Mountain. Please confirm your receipt of these comments and that they will be included in the public record. Thankyou, Jim James R. DeForge Executive Director/Research Biologist Bighorn Institute P.O. Box 262 Palm Desert, CA 92261 760-346-7334 www.bighorninstitute.org 1 Bighorn Institute January 22, 2024 Planning Commission c/o Ms. Tania Flores City of La Quinta 78445 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Via Electronic Mail: TFlores@LaQuintaCA.gov Dear Members of the Planning Commission: We are providing comments for the proposed project The Club at Coral Mountain (SCH# 2421024310), as it pertains to the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep ((avis Canadensis nelsoni). Our primary concern is the likelihood of bighorn sheep being attracted to and accessing The Club at Coral Mountain as a means of artificial food and water if this project is built. Bighorn Institute has documented 60 known urban -related Peninsular bighorn deaths on or near four La Quinta golf courses (Traditions, SilverRock, PGA West and The Quarry) and Lake Cahuilla since 2012. These bighorn deaths are a direct result of the sheep being attracted to the golf course grasses and water features (i.e., artificial food and water sources). Despite the DEIR declaring the project location as non -habitat for bighorn sheep, there is a real potential for attracting bighorn sheep from the adjacent areas they are known to frequent, particularly after the required La Quints fence is completed and the sheep are pushed back into their natural habitat. As such, we strongly recommend this project be fenced in its entirety prior to construction with fencing approved in the Recovery Plan for bighorn in the Peninsular Ranges (i.e., an 8 foot chain-link fence). The City of Rancho Mirage had similar urban -related bighorn issues, however in 2002, a 4''Ianile long, 8ft high chain-link fence was built there and as a result urban -related bighorn deaths have been completed eliminated and is promoting the recovery of this endangered species. We also recommend no vegetation be planted near the project fence to attract the sheep. Finally, we are concerned about the water usage for this project. We continue to struggle with drought conditions so it seems irresponsible and unnecessary to build another project that will use an abundance of water. Wildlife, such as Peninsular bighorn, struggle to have enough available water to survive during droughts and this project could contribute to the water shortage. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. Sincerely, res. Del±orge Executive Director Research Biologist Tania Flores From: Bob Lasser <capezio44@san.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 12:55 PM To: Tania Flores Subject: Written Comments AGAINST The Club at Coral Mountain Attachments: Coral Mountain Project 2024.docx You don't often get email from capezio44@san.rr.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Hello Ms. Flores, Please forward the attached written comments against The Club at Coral Mountain to all of the city Planning Commission members prior to todays meeting on the topic. Thank you, Robert Lasser Golden Poppy Way La Quinta Sent from Mail for Windows To: Planning Commission - City of La Quinta From: Robert Lasser — Resident City of La Quinta Re: Written Comments — The Club at Coral Mountain Action requested: Denial of the Project as Presented January 23, 2024, Dear City Planners, My name is Robert Lasser, and I am a 16 -year resident of the City of La Quinta. I have read the 683 -page proposal for The Club at Coral Mountain project. I have concluded, based on the information provided within the proposal, that the proposed project is NOT an upscale residential golf community development at all, but instead, is a tourist -oriented resort / entertainment/ recreational destination, to be comprised of 750 luxury Short Term Vacation Rentals (STVR's) disguised as a residential golf community. The proposal suggests the following: • A needed variance on how the City of La Quinta allows STVR's. Why would a typical golf residential community need "special considerations" regarding already established rules about STRV's? • The plan presents "Outdoor Recreational" facilities yet does not elaborate specifically on the type of outdoor uses proposed. • The plan describes a 10 acre "Recreational" Lake but does not discuss what type of recreational activities will take place in, on, or around the lake. Will outdoor lake activities include the use of speed boats, or other high noise producing boating activities? • The proposal mentions the need for moveable modular buildings to accommodate "events," staging facilities, and overflow parking lots to accommodate multiday events, and recreational events. Are concerts or other entertainment venues planned? How much noise and traffic will they create for the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and how often? • What type of lighting will be needed to accommodate outdoor recreational events, concerts, and other entertainment venues? • What type of lighting will be needed to illuminate the 10 -acre lake? Will recreational activities take place during evening hours? • What type of sound system will be utilized and what will be the impact on surrounding residential neighborhoods and how often? • The project mentions the needed expansion of roadways leading to the site, along with proposals to add many additional traffic lights, increased lanes in round -a -bouts, longer collector lanes allowing a greater quantity of traffic to flow into the site. Why would all of these traffic mitigation measures be needed if this were just a typical upscale residential golf club community? • The proposal on page 605 states that "noise levels will be identical to existing gated resort communities in the area". How can this be, and what specifically are the "resort" communities they are referring to? Based on the above information, this proposed community does not meet the requirements of the La Quinta 2035 General Plan and should not be approved as presented. • This project is NOT a comparable upscale residential golf community. It is instead a 100% STVR entertainment tourist commercial complex that will host events attracting thousands of people to an otherwise quiet residential area. This project is not compatible with the surrounding quiet residential neighborhoods and should be rejected as presented. Thank you, Robert Lasser Golden Poppy Way La Quinta Tania Flores From: Barrie Brown Martinez <barrie@mitchtsailaw.com> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 2:12 PM To: Tania Flores Cc: Planning WebMail; Consulting Planner Subject: WSRCC - [City of La Quinta, Coral Mountain Resort] - 1/24/23 PC Meeting EIR Comment Letter Attachments: 20240123 _CityofLaQuinta_CoralMountainResort_PCCommentLetter_signed_completed.pdf ' Some people who received this message don't often get email from barrie@mitchtsailaw.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Good afternoon, Please see our attached Comment Letter regarding the Coral Mountain Resort (EA2019-0010) (SCH #: 2021020310), in the city of La Quinta. Additionally, we would also like to request receipt of this email and its attachment. Your time is greatly appreciated, B. Brown Martinez Paralegal Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm - Environmental & Land Use Litigation 139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (626) 314-3821 Fax: (626) 389-5414 Email: barriegmitchtsailaw.com Website: https://www.mitchtsallaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages accompanying it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at barrienmitchtsailaw.com or by telephone at (626) 314-3821 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. P: (626) 314-3821 0 139 South Hudson Avenue F: (626) 389-5414 Mitchell M. Tsai Suite 200 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Law Firm Pasadena, California 91101 VIA E-MAIL January 22, 2024 Design and Development Department City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Em: PlanninggLaQuintaCA.gov Tania Flores, Planning Commission Secretary, City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Em: TFlores@LaQuintaCA.gov Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Em: ConsultingPlanner&LaOuintaCA.gov RE: City of La .uinta's Coral Mountain Resort Project Dear Design and Development Department and Planning Commissioners, On behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters ("Western Carpenters" or "WSRCC"), my Office is submitting these comments on the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR" or "Draft EIR") and the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR" or "Final EIR") for the City of La Quinta's ("City") January 23, 2024, Planning Commission ("PC") for the Coral Mountain Resort Project Project"). The Western Carpenters is a labor union representing almost 90,000 union carpenters in 12 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well -ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 2of16 According to the Draft EIR, The project area encompasses 929 acres. As previously stated in Section 3.4, Project Site History, the project site is currently a part of the "Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03-067", which includes the area south of Avenue 58 and east and west of Madison Street. The area east of Madison Street encompasses the Andalusia Country Club property. The area west of Madison Street is currently vacant. Amendment V of Specific Plan 03-067 is being processed to remove the area west of Madison Street from the Specific Plan area, thus, creating two separate and distinct communities, "Coral Mountain Resort", west of Madison Street, and "Andalusia Country Club", east of Madison Street. The project proposes several applications leading to the development of a boutique resort with a recreational surf wave facility, as well as planned residential neighborhoods and commercial and recreational uses on the west side of Madison Street. The ultimate build -out of the approximately 386 -acre Specific Plan area includes up to 600 residential units on 232.3 acres; a resort hotel with up to 150 keys and complementary resort uses and amenities, a recreational surf facility, and 57,000 square feet of commercial development on 120.8 acres; 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses on 7.7 acres, and open space recreational uses on approximately 23.6 acres. (Draft EIR, p. 3-9.) Individual members of WSRCC live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project's environmental impacts. The Western States Regional Council of Carpenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project. Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control V. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards V. Monterey Wlater Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.AppAth 1109, 1121. The Western Carpenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Voodland (2014) 225 Cal.AppAth 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project's environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties). City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 3of16 Moreover, the Western Carpenters requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seg.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law ("Planning and Zoning Law") (Gov. Code, 65000-65010). California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 211670 and California Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency's governing body. I. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL WORKFORCE TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT The City should require the Project to be built using a local workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor -Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California, have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state -approved apprenticeship training program, or who are registered apprentices in a state -approved apprenticeship training program. Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note: [A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction -related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling. Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 4of16 and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded: [L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost—and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California's workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.' Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area's jobs -housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the "[u]se of a local state -certified apprenticeship program" can result in air pollutant reductions.2 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008: People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.' Moreover, local hire mandates and skill -training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at htWs://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ w�-content/uploads /2020 /09 /Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 — Warehouse Indirect Source Rule — Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 — Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available athtip://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source /Agendas /Governing-Board/2021 /2021-May7-027.12dPsfvrsn= 10. s California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs -Housing Balance at p. 6, available athttl2s://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing_pdf City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 5of16 match those held by local residents.4 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that: In nearly built -out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city's First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate -level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment -ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits. Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 ("A132011"). AB2011 amended the Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by -right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements. The City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts. II. THE CITY SHOULD IMPOSE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT'S CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT COMMUNITY SPREAD OF COVID-19 AND OTHER INFECTIOUS DISEASES Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several a Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs - Housing Balance or Retail -Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available athttp://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.12df. City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 6of16 construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID- 19.5 Western Carpenters recommend that the Lead Agency adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from the Project's construction activities. WSRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site. In particular, based upon Western Carpenters' experience with safe construction site work practices, WSRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site: Construction Site Design: • The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points. • Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. • The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening. • A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening. • The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6 -foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details. • There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening. • Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site. Testing Procedures: 'Santa Clara County Public Health Qune 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, availableathttps://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covidl9 /Pages /press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.as x-- City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 7of16 • The temperature screening being used are non -contact devices. • Temperature readings will not be recorded. • Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual. • Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before temperature screening. • Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be refused access to the Project Site. • Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate [ZONE 2] • After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors. • If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading. • If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A. Planning • Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10 people including all -hands meetings and all -hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 8of16 Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health or applicable local public health agencies. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site. Western Carpenters has also developed a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment ("ICRA") training program to ensure it delivers a workforce that understands how to identify and control infection risks by implementing protocols to protect themselves and all others during renovation and construction projects in healthcare environments.' ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of healthcare facilities. ICRA protocols prevent cross contamination, minimizing the risk of secondary infections in patients at hospital facilities. The City should require the Project to be built using a workforce trained in ICRA protocols. III. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute designed to inform decision -makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines"), § 15002, subd. e See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America's Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COV1C-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available athtWs://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/NABTU CPWR Standards COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COV1D-19 Pandemic, available at htt2s://dl2w.lacounty.g,ov/building-and-safety/docs/pw guidelines-construction-sites.pdf. For details concerning Western Carpenters's 1CRA training program, see hLtl2s://icrahealthcare.com/. City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 9of16 (a)(1).' At its core, its purpose is to "inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made." Citizens of Goleta Valley P. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. 1. Background Concerning Environmental Impact Reports CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subds. (a) (2)-(3); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee V. Board of Port Comes (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley P. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at p. 400. The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns" specified in Public Resources Code section 21081. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15092, subds. (b)(2)(A)-(B). While the courts review an EIR using an `abuse of discretion' standard, the reviewing court is not to uncrificalyrely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.AppAth at p. 1355 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 409 fn. 12) (internal quotations omitted). A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. Id. Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA's information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. Sierra Club P. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.AppAth 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq., are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21083. The CEQA Guidelines are given "great weight in interpreting CEQA except when ... clearly unauthorized or erroneous." Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & 111ildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217. City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 10 of 16 informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (internal quotations omitted). The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. Communities for a Better Environment V. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-450). The EIR's function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. Id. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. Id. A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA. This presumption is reflected in what is known as the "fair argument" standard under which an EIR must be prepared whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. P. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602; Friends of `B"St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.3d 988, 1002. The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that "may have a significant effect on the environment." PRC, 5 21151; see No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los An (1974) 13 Cal.App.3d 68, 75; accord Jensen V. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.Sth 877, 884. Under this test, if a proposed project is not exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. PRC, §5 21100 (a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064 (a)(1), 0(1). An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors P. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. PRC, § 21080, subd. (c)(1); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063 (b)(2), 150640(3). "Significant effect upon the environment" is defined as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." PRC, § 21068; CEQA Guidelines, § 15382. A project may have a significant effect on the environment if there is a City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 11 of 16 reasonable probability that it will result in a significant impact. No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at p. 83 fn. 16; see Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(b)(1); see County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1580. This standard sets a "low threshold" for preparation of an EIR. Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Nelson P. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; Bozeman P. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 580; Citizen Action to Serve All Students P. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754; Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 310. If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect. See Jensen, 23 Cal.App.Sth at p. 886; Clews Land & Livestock P. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.Sth 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. P. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling Inc. P. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491; Friends of 13 "St., 106 Cal.App.3d 988; CEQA Guidelines, § 150640(1). IV. EXPERTS This comment letter includes comments from air quality and greenhouse gas experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. and Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. concerning the FEIR. Their comments, attachments, and Curriculum Vitae ("CV") are hereby attached and incorporated by reference as (Exhibit D). Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. ("Mr. Hagemann") has over 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from Perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Mr. Hagemann also served as Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closer. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 12 of 16 For the past 15 years, Mr. Hagemann has worked as a founding partner with SWAPE (Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise). At SWAPE, Mr. Hagemann has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Hagemann has a Bachelor of Arts degree in geology from Humboldt State University in California and a Masters in Science degree from California State University Los Angeles in California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. ("Dr. Rosenfeld") is a principal environmental chemist at SWAPE. Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years' experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts on human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risks, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particular matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants, Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources. City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 13 of 16 Dr. Rosenfeld has a Ph.D. in soil chemistry from the University of Washington, M.S. in environmental science from U.C. Berkeley, and B.A. in environmental studies from U.C. Santa Barbara. V. THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS DEFICIENT A. The DEIR and FEIR Fail to Properly Evaluate and Mitigate the Project's Air Qualit3� Impacts The Project's Total Operational AirQuality Impacts May Be Grossly Underestimated The DEIR improperly calculates the Project's operational emissions because it fails to sum the emissions for Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 in order to estimate the Project's total operational air quality impact. (DEIR, p. 3-23.) As experts Matt Hagemann and Paul Rosenfeld state, "[i]n order to correctly evaluate the Project's air quality impact, we summed the DEIR's operational air quality emissions from all three phases of Project buildout. We found that the Project's operational VOC and NOX emissions exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 55 pounds per day ("lbs/day")". (Exhibit D, p. 2.) Accordingly, the City must revise and recirculate the Final EIR to adequately account for this significant impact. B. The DEIR and FEIR Fail to Properly Evaluate and Mitigate the Project's Health Risk Impacts The Project violates CEQA because the EIR does not include a quantified health risk assessment which correlates the Project's construction and operational toxic air contaminant ("TAC") emissions and air pollutants to its impact on human health as set forth on Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502. As experts Matt Hagemann and Paul Rosenfeld explain, "construction of the proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter ("DPM") emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a potential construction period of approximately 4- to 6 -years ([DEIR] p. 82). Furthermore, the DEIR indicates that the Project would generate approximately 8,932 daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions during Project operation ([DEIR] p. 4.13-43)." (Exhibit D, p. 4.) City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 14 of 16 Accordingly, the City should require revision and recirculation of the FEIR to adequately address this concern, as also highlighted in WSRCC's April 26, 2022 comment letter, incorporated herein. Therefore, the EIR should be revised to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project - generated DPM emissions for future individual projects. C. The Project Fails to Properly Evaluate and Mitigate the Project's Greenhouse Gas Impacts Because the EIR Fails to Describe All Feasible Mitigation Measures That Can Minimize the Project's Significant Impacts Associated with GHG Emissions A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project's significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21061. To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe any feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the project's significant environmental effects. PRC §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b) (3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(A); and find that `specific overriding economic, legal, social, technology or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(B). "A gloomy forecast of environmental degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the impacts and restore ecological equilibrium." Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039. According to CEQA Guidelines, "[w]hen an EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment." CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(8)(2). The DEIR concludes that the Project will have significant Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions impacts, since "Project implementation would produce GHG emissions totaling 6.46 MTCO2e per SP per year, which would exceed the SCAQMD screening threshold of 3.65 MTCO2e per SP per year". (DEIR, p. 4.7-19.) City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 15 of 16 The Project proposes to follow certain regulatory requirements and proposes PDF's and GHG mitigation measure MM GHG-1 to further reduce construction and operational emissions. (DEIR, 4.7-20), Thus, the DEIR concludes the Project's impacts associated with GHG emissions are "significant and unavoidable" (Id.) However, an impact can only be labeled as significant -and -unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered and the EIR lacks substantial evidence to support a finding that no other feasible mitigation existed to mitigate Project's significant impacts. The EIR fails to demonstrate consistency with all the measures and strategies of the 2020 SCAG RTP/SCS Plan. Thus, the EIR fails to demonstrate that all feasible mitigation measures were considered. To the extent that the Project fails to comply with the measures mentioned above, the Project EIR has failed to mitigate GHG emissions to the extent feasible. Experts Paul Rosenfeld and Matt Hagemann identify several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project's emissions, including SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR's Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures ("PMM-AQ-1") and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures ("PMM-GHG-1").9 (Exhibit D, p. 5.) Furthermore, the EIR fails to integrate or consider many GHG reduction measures outlined in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) August 2010 Report which the South Coast Air Quality Management District has recognized as a "comprehensive guidance document for quantifying the effectiveness of GHG mitigation measures."10 9 "4.0 Mitigation Measures." Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fpeir connectsocal addendum 4 mitigationmeasures.pdPl606004420, p. 4.0-2 — 4.0-10; 4.0-19 — 4.0-23; See also: "Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report." Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 10 South Coast Air Quality Management District (2019) "Greenhouse Gases, accessed on April 10, 2022, available at https://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceaa/air-duality-analysis- handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies/greenhouse-gases. See also "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures" California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) August 2010, available at https://www.agmd.gov/docs/ City of La Qunita — Coral Mountain Resort January 19, 2024 Page 16 of 16 VI. CONCLUSION WSRCC requests that the City revise and recirculate the Project's FEIR to address the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact this Office. Sincerely, tephanie Papayanis Attorneys for Western States Regional Council of Carpenters Attached: March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). April 6, 2022 Letter from Hagemann and Rosenfeld to Mitchel M. Tsai re Comments on the Environmental Impact Reports for the Coral Mountain Resort Project, with Exhibits (Exhibit D). default- source /ceqa/handbook/ mitigation -measures -and -control -efficiencies /quantifying- greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdPsfvrsn=0. EXHIBIT A �SWAPE Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 26562 9th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com March 8, 2021 Mitchell M. Tsai 155 South EI Molino, Suite 104 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai, Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE") is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts. Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations The California Emissions Estimator Model ("CaIEEMod") is a "statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects."' CaIEEMod quantifies construction -related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on -road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on -road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2 The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CaIEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on -road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.' 1 "California Emissions Estimator Model." CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/home. Z "California Emissions Estimator Model." CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 "CaIEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 1 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled ("VMT") associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle -class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CaIEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction -related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4 Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CaIEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below): "VMTd = F(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length 1) n Where: n = Number of land uses being modeled."' Furthermore, to calculate the on -road emissions associated with worker trips, CaIEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below): "EmisslonSpollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant Where: Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions."' Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise. Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CaIEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on -road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.' In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CaIEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project - specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.' The default number of construction -related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the 4 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, P. 23. ' "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 "CalEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. $ CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 2 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively."10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home -to -work vehicle trips.11 The operational home -to -work vehicle trip lengths are: "[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings" (emphasis added)." Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CaIEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13 9 "CaIEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 "Appendix D Default Data Tables." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05 appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 - D-86. 3 Worker Trip Length by Air Basin Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles) Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8 Lake County 16.8 10.8 Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8 North Central Coast 17.1 12.3 North Coast 16.8 10.8 Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8 Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8 Salton Sea 14.6 11 San Diego 16.8 10.8 San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8 San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8 South Central Coast 16.8 10.8 South Coast 19.8 14.7 Average 16.47 11.17 Minimum 10.80 10.80 Maximum 19.80 14.70 Range 9.00 3.90 9 "CaIEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 "Appendix D Default Data Tables." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05 appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 - D-86. 3 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8 - miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7 - miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location. Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction -related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan ("Project") located in the City of Claremont ("City"). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000 -SF of retail space, 45,000 -SF of office space, as well as a 50 -room hotel, on the 24 -acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles -South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project's construction -related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10 -mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C). Local Hire Provision Net Change Without Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 3,623 120.77 With Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) % Decrease in Construction -related GHG Emissions 3,024 100.80 17% As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction -related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project -level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction -related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project's urbanization level and location. 14 "Appendix D Default Data Tables." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05 appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 4 Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. f Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. 5 Attachment A Rural H -W Urban H -W Location Type Location Name (miles) (miles) Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8 Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3 Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11 Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8 Air Basin San Francisco 10.8 10.8 Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8 Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7 Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8 Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8 Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8 Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54 Air District Calaveras 16.8 10.8 Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8 Air District EI Dorado 16.8 10.8 Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8 Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8 Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8 Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3 Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8 Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8 Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8 Air District Mariposa 16.8 10.8 Air District Mendocino 16.8 10.8 Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8 Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Air District Monterey Bay 16.8 10.8 Air District North Coast 16.8 10.8 Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8 Air District Northern 16.8 10.8 Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8 Air District Sacramento 15 10 Air District San Diego 16.8 10.8 Air District San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 Air District San Luis Obispo 13 13 Air District Santa Barbara 8.3 8.3 Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8 Air District Siskiyou County 16.8 10.8 Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7 Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8 Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8 Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8 Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10 County Alameda 10.8 10.8 County Alpine 16.8 10.8 County Amador 16.8 10.8 County Butte 12.54 12.54 County Calaveras 16.8 10.8 County Colusa 16.8 10.8 County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8 County Del Norte 16.8 10.8 County EI Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8 County EI Dorado- 16.8 10.8 County Fresno 16.8 10.8 County Glenn 16.8 10.8 County Humboldt 16.8 10.8 County Imperial 10.2 7.3 County Inyo 16.8 10.8 County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8 County Kern-San 16.8 10.8 County Kings 16.8 10.8 County Lake 16.8 10.8 County Lassen 16.8 10.8 County Los Angeles- 16.8 10.8 County Los Angeles- 19.8 14.7 County Madera 16.8 10.8 County Marin 10.8 10.8 County Mariposa 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8 County Merced 16.8 10.8 County Modoc 16.8 10.8 County Mono 16.8 10.8 County Monterey 16.8 10.8 County Napa 10.8 10.8 County Nevada 16.8 10.8 County Orange 19.8 14.7 County Placer -Lake 16.8 10.8 County Placer -Mountain 16.8 10.8 County Placer- 16.8 10.8 County Plumas 16.8 10.8 County Riverside- 16.8 10.8 County Riverside- 19.8 14.7 County Riverside -Salton 14.6 11 County Riverside -South 19.8 14.7 County Sacramento 15 10 County San Benito 16.8 10.8 County San Bernardino- 16.8 10.8 County San Bernardino- 19.8 14.7 County San Diego 16.8 10.8 County San Francisco 10.8 10.8 County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 County San Luis Obispo 13 13 County San Mateo 10.8 10.8 County Santa Barbara- 8.3 8.3 County Santa Barbara- 8.3 8.3 County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8 County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8 County Shasta 16.8 10.8 County Sierra 16.8 10.8 County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8 County Solano- 15 10 County Solano-San 16.8 10.8 County Sonoma -North 16.8 10.8 County Sonoma -San 10.8 10.8 County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8 County Sutter 16.8 10.8 County Tehama 16.8 10.8 County Trinity 16.8 10.8 County Tulare 16.8 10.8 County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8 County Ventura 16.8 10.8 County Yolo 15 10 County Yuba 16.8 10.8 Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8 Worker Air Basin Great Basin Valleys Lake County Lake Tahoe Mojave Desert Mountain Counties North Central Coast North Coast Northeast Plateau Sacramento Valley Salton Sea San Diego San Francisco Bay Area San Joaquin Valley South Central Coast South Coast Average Mininum Maximum Range igth by Air Basin Rural (miles) 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 17.1 16.8 16.8 16.8 14.6 16.8 10.8 16.8 16.8 19.8 16.47 10.80 19.80 9.00 Urban (miles) 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 12.3 10.8 10.8 10.8 11 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 14.7 11.17 10.80 14.70 3.90 Attachment B CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 + 1000sgft ; 1.03 45,000.00 i 0 ---------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- - h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 + High = — — ;-------------------- 1000sgft ; 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0 -----------------------------_------------------------------ _------------------------------ Hotel 50.00 + = — -- —;------------- ------- Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0 -----------y----------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- Quality Restaurant 8.00 + = --- --- —;------------- --------------- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0 ----------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- Apartments Low Rise 25.00 + = --- --------- —;------------- Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72 -----------------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------=-----------------------i------------------+--------------- Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789 ------------------------------ _------------------------------ _----------------------------- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood -burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction -related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWood Mass IT 1,019.20 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 -------------p-------------_------------------- tblFire laces ------------ -------------------------- rW Numbeood r 1.25 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------r----------------------------- ------------------------- NumberWood 48.75 0.00 ---------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------ ------------------------- ST TR r 7.16 6.17 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST TR 6.39 3.87 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- ST TR 2.46 1.39 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST TR r 158.37 79.82 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST TR r 8.19 3.75 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST TR r 94.36 63.99 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST TR r 49.97 10.74 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU TR r 6.07 6.16 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- SU TR 5.86 4.18 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU TR r 1.05 0.69 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- SU TR 131.84 78.27 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips Y ---------------------------- SU TR �-----------------------------T-------------------------- } 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass r 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 •i 0.1713 i 1.8242 � 1.1662 i 2.4000e- 0.4169 0.0817 i 0.4986 0.1795 i 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 i 213.1969 213.1969 i 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993 003 ------------- 2022 •i 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 i 1,721.682 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 i � i � � i � i � � i � '� i i i i i i i i • 1 6 i 6 i i i 7 2023 •i 0.6148 i 3.3649 � 5.6747 i 0.0178 � 1.1963 � 0.0996 i 1.2959 � 0.3203 i 0.0935 0.4138 � 0.0000 i 1,627.529 1,627.529 i 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492 '� i i i i i i i i • 5 i 5 i i 5 2024 •1 4.1619 i 0.1335 0.2810 i 5.9000e- 0.0325 6.4700e- i 0.0390 8.6300e- i 6.0400e- 0.0147 0.0000 i 52.9078 52.9078 i 8.0200e- 0.0000 1 53.1082 004 003 003 003 : 003 i Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 6 6 7 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Mitigated Construction Quarter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 5-31-2022 1.1985 I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 1.1918 1.1918 6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 •i 0.1713 i 1.8242 � 1.1662 i 2.4000e- 0.4169 0.0817 i 0.4986 0.1795 i 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 i 213.1967 � 213.1967 i 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991 003 2022 •i 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 i 1,721.682 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 i � i � � i � i � � i 3 i 3 i i i 3 2023 •i 0.6148 i 3.3648 5.6747 i 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 i 1.2959 0.3203 i 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 i 1,627.529 1,627.529 i 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492 0.00 0.00 2024 •1 4.1619 i 0.1335 0.2810 i 5.9000e- 0.0325 6.4700e- i 0.0390 8.6300e- i 6.0400e- 0.0147 0.0000 i 52.9077 52.9077 i 8.0200e- 0.0000 53.1082 004 003 003 003 : 003 i 0.00 Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 3 3 3 Quarter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985 4 6-1-2022 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 1.1918 1.1918 6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103 2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613 3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985 4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921 5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918 6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774 7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320 8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265 10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857 11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207 N20 CO2e Highest 2.8857 2.8857 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 i 10.3804 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 i i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 i 220.9670 i 0.0201 i 3.7400e- 222.5835 •� 003 . 003 i Energy •i 0.1398 i 1.2312 i 0.7770 7.6200e- i i 0.0966 i 0.0966 i i 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1 3,896.073 i 3,896.073 i 0.1303 i 0.0468 3,913.283 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i 3 ;� i i i i Mobile •1 1.5857 i 7.9962 i 19.1834 i 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 i 7.8559 i 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 1 7,620.498 7,620.498 i 0.3407 0.0000 1 7,629.016 '1 i i i i i i i i 1 6 i 6 i i 1 2 Waste •1 i i i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 i 0.0000 207.8079 i 12.2811 0.0000 1 514.8354 ----------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------------*- - - ---r------ ---------------j-------*------- Water •1 i i i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 � 29.1632 i 556.6420 � 585.8052 i 3.0183 � 0.0755 � 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 12,531.15 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 j j j j 07 19 j 51 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 10.3804 i 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 � i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 � 220.9670 i 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 003 003 i 0.00 Energy •i 0.1398 i 1.2312 0.7770 i 7.6200e- 0.0966 i 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 i 3,896.073 3,896.073 i 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Mobile •i 1.5857 i 7.9962 19.1834 i 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 i 7.8559 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 i 7,620.498 7,620.498 i 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 6 i 6 i i i 2 0.00 Waste •1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 i 0.0000 207.8079 i 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 0.00 Water •1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 29.1632 i 556.6420 585.8052 i 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 0.00 0.00 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 12,531.15 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 07 19 51 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 ;Demolition +Demolition 19/1/2021 110/12/2021 5: 30: +i 2 :Site Preparation +Site Preparation 110/13/2021 :11/9/2021 5: 20: +i 3 •Grading +Grading 111/10/2021 :1/11/2022 5: 45: +i 4 -Building Construction +Building Construction 11/12/2022 :12/12/2023 5: 500: +i 5 -Paving +Paving 112/13/2023 :1/30/2024 5: 35: +i 6 -Architectural Coating -Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5. 35, Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators 1 3 8.001 158• 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247• 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers 1 31 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 41 8.001 97• 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators 1 21 8.001 158• 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders 1 11 8.001 187• 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers 1 11 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading 'Scrapers ; 21 8.001 367• 0.48 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 21 8.001 97• 0.37 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 11 7.001 231, 0.29 �_ - - - --------------------------------------L Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 31 8.001 89• 0.20 + _ __i i _ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 11 8.001 _ 84• 0.74 _ �_ - - - - --------------------------------------L Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 31 7.001 97• 0.37 + __ i i Building Construction 'Welders 1 11 8.001 46• 0.45 ------------------------------------------ �- - - - - ----------- Paving +Pavers 1 21 8.001 130• 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment 1 21 8.001 132• 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers 1 21 8.001 80• 0.38 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------F------------ r ------------- ----------- Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 • 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase NameI Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00 0.001 458.00; 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix (HHDT ------------- Site Preparation 7; -----_--, 18.00: --------i 0.001 0.00: --------- 14.70: ------------------------ 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix --------------------- ;HDT_Mix ;HHDT --------------- ° �- Grading -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 14.70: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT I- ----------------A-------------- Construction v 9; i ----------i- 801.00 1 --------i 143.001 :Building 0.00: ---------' --------- 14.70: ------------------------�---------- 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix 1 -------- ;HHDT �- A----------- Paving 6; - i------------ 15.00: 1 --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: '---------� 14.70: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT 0.0729 7.5100e- 1 0.0291 f I Architectural Coating ; 1; 160.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i , , , , 0.0496 , 0.0000 , 0.0496 , 7.5100e- , 0.0000 ; 7.5100e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 003 003 . 1 Off -Road •i 0.0475 , 0.4716 , 0.3235 , 5.8000e- , , 0.0233 , 0.0233 , , 0.0216 ; 0.0216 0.0000 i 51.0012 , 51.0012 , 0.0144 , 0.0000 i 51.3601 004 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 1.9300e- i 0.0634 i 0.0148 1.8000e- i 3.9400e- 1.9000e- 4.1300e- i 1.0800e- 1.8000e- 1.2600e- 0.0000 i 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- i 0.0000 i 17.4869 003 003 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Off -Road •i 0.0475 i 0.4716 i 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 i 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 i 0.0000 i 51.3600 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 9.7000e- 7.5000e- 8.5100e- 2.000Oe- 2.4700e- 2.000Oe- 2.4900e- 6.5000e- 2.000Oe- 6.7000e- 0.0000 i 2.2251 2.2251 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 2.2267 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 i � � 005 5.8000e- Total 2.9000e- 0.0641 0.0233 2.000Oe- 6.4100e- 2.1000e- 6.6200e- 1.7300e- 2.000Oe- 1.9300e- 0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e- 0.0000 19.7136 11 003 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 i 7.5100e- 0.0000 7.5100e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 003 Off -Road •i 0.0475 i 0.4716 i 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 i 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 i 0.0000 i 51.3600 004 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 004 003 1 j CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Hauling •I 1.9300e- I 0.0634 I 0.0148 11.8000e- 13.9400e- I 1.9000e- 14.1300e- I 1.0800e- 11.8000e- 1.2600e- 0.0000 I 17.4566 I 17.4566 11.2100e- I 0.0000 i 17.4869 �I I I I I I I I I I 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003003 I- I I I I I I I I I I I Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total I I I I I I I I I- I I I Worker •I 9.7000e- 6.7000e- � 0.0000 I 2.2251 2.2251 0.0000 i 2.2267 17.5000e- 18.5100e- 12.00OOe- 12.4700e- 12.00OOe- 12.4900e- 16.5000e- 12.00OOe- I 17.00OOe- I 'I 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 005 � 3.8000e- Total 2.9000e- 0.0641 0.0233 2.00OOe- 6.4100e- 2.1000e- 6.6200e- 1.7300e- 2.00OOe- 1.9300e- 0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e- 0.0000 19.7136 11 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.1807 I 0.0000 I 0.1807 I 0.0993 I 0.0000 0.0993 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I I I •I I I I I I I I I I I I I Off -Road •I 0.0389 I 0.4050 I 0.2115 13.8000e- I I 0.0204 I 0.0204 I I 0.0188 � 0.0188 � 0.0000 I 33.4357 I 33.4357 I 0.0108 I 0.0000 i 33.7061 004 I I I I 1 I I I I Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I Hauling •I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 004 I I I I 1 I I I I Worker •I 7.7000e- 1.9700e- 5.4000e- 0.0000 I 1.7801 1.7801 0.0000 i 1.7814 16.000Oe- 16.8100e- 12.000Oe- I 12.000Oe- 11.9900e- 15.2000e- 11.000Oe- I 15.000Oe- I 'I 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 005 � 0.2115 Total 7.7000e- 6.000Oe- 6.8100e- 2.000Oe- 1.9700e- 2.000Oe- 1.9900e- 5.2000e- 1.000Oe- 5.4000e- 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.000Oe- 0.0000 1.7814 004 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.1807 I 0.0000 I 0.1807 I 0.0993 I 0.0000 0.0993 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I I I •I I I I I I I I I I I I I Off -Road •I 0.0389 I 0.4050 I 0.2115 13.8000e- I I 0.0204 I 0.0204 I I 0.0188 � 0.0188 � 0.0000 I 33.4357 I 33.4357 I 0.0108 I 0.0000 i 33.7060 004 I I I I 1 I I I I Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.000033.7060 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 - ------------------------------------------'------------------ - - -- -- - -+-------------'--------------- ------- Worker •i 7.7000e- 6.00OOe- 6.8100e- 2.00OOe- 1.9700e- 2.00OOe- 1.9900e- 5.2000e- 1.00OOe- 5.4000e- 0.0000 i 1.7801 1.7801 5.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.7814 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 0.5867 Total 7.7000e- 6.00OOe- 6.8100e- 2.00OOe- 1.9700e- 2.00OOe- 1.9900e- 5.2000e- 1.00OOe- 5.4000e- 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.00OOe- 0.0000 1.7814 003 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 i 0.0693 i 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0796 i 0.8816 i 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 i 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 i 0.0000 i 104.3776 003 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 Worker •i 1.6400e- 1.2700e- 0.0144 4.000Oe- 4.1600e- 3.000Oe- 4.2000e- 1.1100e- 3.000Oe- 1.1400e- 0.0000 i 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 0.0000 i 3.7607 i i i i i 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 i 0.8816 Total 1.6400e- 1.2700e- 0.0144 4.000Oe- 4.1600e- 3.000Oe- 4.2000e- 1.1100e- 3.000Oe- 1.1400e- 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 0.0000 3.7607 11 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 i 0.0693 i 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0796 i 0.8816 i 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 i 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 i 0.0000 i 104.3775 003 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 1.6400e- 1.2700e- 0.0144 4.00OOe- 4.1600e- 3.00OOe- 4.2000e- 1.1100e- 3.00OOe- 1.1400e- 0.0000 i 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 0.0000 i 3.7607 i i i i i 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 i 2.2000e- Total 1.6400e- 1.2700e- 0.0144 4.00OOe- 4.1600e- 3.00OOe- 4.2000e- 1.1100e- 3.00OOe- 1.1400e- 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 0.0000 3.7607 11 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i i i i i 0.0807 i 0.0000 i 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 0.0807 5.7200e- 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 19.2414 004 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0127 Worker •i 2.8000e- 2.1000e- 2.4400e- 1.000Oe- 7.7000e- 1.000Oe- 7.7000e- 2.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 2.1000e- 0.0000 i 0.6679 0.6679 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.6684 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 0.0807 Total 2.8000e- 2.1000e- 2.4400e- 1.0000e- 7.7000e- 1.000Oe- 7.7000e- 2.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 2.1000e- 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.6684 11 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i i i i i 0.0807 i 0.0000 i 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 0.0807 5.7200e- 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 19.2414 004 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.2158 1.9754 Worker •i 2.8000e- 2.1000e- 2.4400e- 1.00OOe- 7.7000e- 1.00OOe- 7.7000e- 2.00OOe- 1.00OOe- 2.1000e- 0.0000 i 0.6679 0.6679 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.6684 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 i � � 005 0.1023 Total 2.8000e- 2.1000e- 2.4400e- 1.00OOe- 7.7000e- 1.00OOe- 7.7000e- 2.00OOe- 1.00OOe- 2.1000e- 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.6684 11 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.2158 i 1.9754 2.0700 i 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 i i 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 i 293.1324 i 293.1324 0.0702 i 0.0000 i 294.8881 003 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 003 ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0527 i 1.6961 i 0.4580 4.5500e- i 0.1140 3.1800e- 0.1171 i 0.0329 3.0400e- 0.0359 0.0000 i 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 i 0.0000 i 442.6435 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.4088 i 0.3066 i 3.5305 0.0107 i 1.1103 8.8700e- 1.1192 i 0.2949 8.1700e- 0.3031 0.0000 i 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 i 0.0000 i 967.4773 003 003 i 2.0700 Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.0702 0.0000 1,408.795 1,408.795 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120 003 [777000 2 2 8 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.2158 i 1.9754 i 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 i 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 i 0.0000 i 294.8877 003 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 003 i ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0527 i 1.6961 i 0.4580 4.5500e- i 0.1140 3.1800e- 0.1171 i 0.0329 3.0400e- 0.0359 0.0000 i 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 i 0.0000 i 442.6435 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.4088 i 0.3066 i 3.5305 0.0107 i 1.1103 8.8700e- 1.1192 i 0.2949 8.1700e- 0.3031 0.0000 i 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 i 0.0000 i 967.4773 003 003 i 2.0061 Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.0681 0.0000 1,408.795 1,408.795 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120 003 [777000 2 2 8 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1942 i 1.7765 i 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 i 0.0000 i 287.9814 003 i Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 i Vendor •i 0.0382 i 1.2511 i 0.4011 4.3000e- i 0.1113 1.4600e- 0.1127 i 0.0321 1.4000e- 0.0335 0.0000 i 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 i 0.0000 i 418.5624 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.3753 i 0.2708 i 3.1696 0.0101 i 1.0840 8.4100e- 1.0924 i 0.2879 7.7400e- 0.2957 0.0000 i 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 i 0.0000 i 909.9291 003 003 i 2.0061 Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e- 1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e- 0.0681 0.0000 1,327.336 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491 003 j 003 j j 003 j [-377000 9 [1,327.336 9 j 6 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1942 i 1.7765 i 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 i 0.0000 i 287.9811 003 i Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Vendor •i 0.0382 i 1.2511 i 0.4011 4.3000e- i 0.1113 1.4600e- 0.1127 i 0.0321 1.4000e- 0.0335 0.0000 i 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 i 0.0000 i 418.5624 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.3753 i 0.2708 i 3.1696 0.0101 i 1.0840 8.4100e- 1.0924 i 0.2879 7.7400e- 0.2957 0.0000 i 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 i 0.0000 i 909.9291 003 003 i 6.7100e- Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e- 1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e- 13.0175 _116721 1,327.336 0.000013.1227 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491 004 j 003 003 j j 003 003 j [-377000 9 [1,327.336 9 j 6 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 i 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 i 13.1227 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 13.0175 _116721 0.000013.1227 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 1 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i --------------------------------------------'----------------------- -+ ----�-------------'--------------� Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.7000e- 2.7000e- 3.1200e- 1.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.000Oe- 1.0800e- 2.8000e- 1.000Oe- 2.9000e- 0.0000 i 0.8963 0.8963 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.8968 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 i � � 005 Total 3.7000e- 2.7000e- 3.1200e- 1.0000e- 1.0700e- 1.000Oe- 1.0800e- 2.8000e- 1.000Oe- 2.9000e- 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.8968 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 003 1 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 i 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 i 13.1227 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 13.0175 _116721 0.000013.1227 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 1 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i ----------------------- ---------------------'------------------------ --+ ----� ------ -------'----00- ----00 1 000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 3.7000e- 2.7000e- 3.1200e- 1.00OOe- 1.0700e- 1.00OOe- 1.0800e- 2.8000e- 1.00OOe- 2.9000e- 0.0000 i 0.8963 0.8963 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.8968 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 3.7000e- 2.7000e- 3.1200e- 1.00OOe- 1.0700e- 1.00OOe- 1.0800e- 2.8000e- 1.00OOe- 2.9000e- 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.8968 004 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0109 i 0.1048 0.1609 i 2.5000e- i i 5.1500e- i 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 i 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- i 0.0000 i 22.2073 •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.0000 22.2073 11 004 003 003 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i i •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 5.9000e- 4.1000e- 4.9200e- 2.000Oe- 1.8100e- 1.000Oe- 1.8200e- 4.8000e- 1.000Oe- 4.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.4697 1.4697 4.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.4706 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 i � � 005 Total 5.9000e- 4.1000e- 4.9200e- 2.000Oe- 1.8100e- 1.000Oe- 1.8200e- 4.8000e- 1.000Oe- 4.9000e- 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.000 0.0000 1.4706 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 003 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 i 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.0000 i 22.2073 i i i •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.000022.2073 11 004 003 003 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total - ------------------------------------------'------------------ - - -- -- - -+-------------'--------------- ------- Worker •i 5.9000e- 4.1000e- 4.9200e- 2.00OOe- 1.8100e- 1.00OOe- 1.8200e- 4.8000e- 1.00OOe- 4.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.4697 1.4697 4.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.4706 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 5.00OOe- Total 5.9000e- 4.1000e- 4.9200e- 2.00OOe- 1.8100e- 1.00OOe- 1.8200e- 4.8000e- 1.00OOe- 4.9000e- 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.000 0.0000 1.4706 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •1 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 i i i 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.00OOe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 4.4745 005 003 003 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 ��---------------------------------------------'----------------------- -+ - -------------'--.--�-------T Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0101 6.9900e- 0.0835 2.8000e- 0.0307 2.3000e- 0.0309 8.1500e- 2.2000e- 8.3700e- 0.0000 i 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 0.0000 i 24.9558 i i i i � i 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i Total 0.0101 6.9900e- 0.0835 2.8000e- 0.0307 2.3000e- 0.0309 8.1500e- 2.2000e- 8.3700e- 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1007 0.0000 24.9558 005 003 003 004 003 004 003 004 003 004 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •1 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 i i i 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 4.4745 005 003 003 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor•i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0101 6.9900e- 0.0835 2.8000e- 0.0307 2.3000e- 0.0309 8.1500e- 2.2000e- 8.3700e- 0.0000 i 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 0.0000 i 24.9558 i i i i � i 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i Total 0.0101 6.9900e- 0.0835 2.8000e- 0.0307 2.3000e- 0.0309 8.1500e- 2.2000e- 8.3700e- 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1007 0.0000 24.9558 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 4.2 Trip Summary Information ROG I NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category tons/yr 506,227 506,227 ......................................------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; MT/yr ---------- ; 3,773.25 Mitigated •i 1.5857 i 7.9962 i 19.1834 i 0.0821 i 7.7979 i 0.0580 7.8559 i 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 i 7,620.498 � 7,620.498 � 0.3407 i 0.0000 i 7,629.016 ----------- --------------------------------------------------- 31.05 -- ---- - ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- ---- High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) .................................................. ; 6 i 6 i i i 2 2817.72 - - ------- --------------------------------------------------- 3,413,937 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 - 7,620.498 - 0.3407 - 0.0000 7,629.016 Quality Restaurant ......................................------------ + 501.12 511.92 ---------- 461.20 ---- - - - - -- - 707,488 ----------------------: 6 6 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 145.75 ; 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 ......................................------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 ---------- ; 3,773.25 ---------- -----------------------:------------------------ 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 ......................................----------- General Office Building ......................................--- ; 288.45 ----- ; 62.55 ------------ -r ----------- --------------------------------------------------- 31.05 -- ---- - ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- ---- High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) .................................................. ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 ---------- -r 2817.72 - - ------- --------------------------------------------------- 3,413,937 3,413,937 Ho.............� .. ---_ ----192.00 1--T-----------y--------------3----------- 160.00 445,703 Quality Restaurant ......................................------------ + 501.12 511.92 ---------- 461.20 ---- - - - - -- - 707,488 ----------------------: 707,488 ------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H -W or C -W I H -S or C -C I H -O or C -NW IH -W or C -W I H -S or C -C I H -O or C -NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 Y 40.20 : 1 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------__ 0.021166; __ __ ? _ T _ -------- ---- ------------- General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 ; 19 4 ....................... r----------- High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60 ---------- 8.40 ---------- 6.90 --------i'--------t----------- 8.50 1 72.50 ---------- 19.00 37 --------- ----------------- 20 43 .......:......r........�------------------ -- ... ? r--------------.... T.. -------- .r.. -------- ---- r... ------------- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 ; 58 ; 38 ; 4 .......................r---------- Quality Restaurant 16.60 ---------T---------. 8.40 6.90 --------i'--------t----------- 12.00 1 69.00 ---------- 19.00 38 --------- ----------------- 18 44 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.209971 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088} 0.044216; 0.209971 0.116369; 0.014033; 0.006332 0.021166; 0.033577 0.002613; 0.001817 0.005285; 0.0007121 0.000821 r Apartments Mid Rise 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 r General Office Building 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.209971 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712: 0.000821 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5430881 0.044216, 0.209971, 0.116369, 0.014033, 0.006332, 0.021166, 0.033577, 0.002613, 0.001817, 0.005285, 0.000712: 0.000821 Restaurant) ....................... f -------- --------- _ ..... _ . Hotel 0.543088 r 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------------_-------- --------------- Quality Restaurant 0.5430881 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088. 0.044216' 0.209971' 0.116369' 0.014033' 0.006332' 0.021166' 0.033577' 0.002613' 0.001817' 0.005285' 0.000712' 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity •1 I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I I 12,512.646 1 2,512.646 I 0.1037 I 1 0.0215 i 2,521.635 Mitigated 5 1 5 1 1 1 6 •1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 Electricity •1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I 0.0000 1 I 1 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 I 12,512.646 1 2,512.646 I 0.1037 I 1 0.0215 2,521.635 Unmitigated 5 1 5 1 I 1 6 •1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 NaturalGas 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 Miti 003 7 7 8gated I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 NaturalGas 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- - 0.0966 0.0966 - 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 • 1,383.426 • 0.0265 - 0.0254 • 1,391.647 Unmitigated 003 7 7 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 408494 •1 2.2000e- 1 0.0188 1 8.0100e- 1 1.2000e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1 1.5200e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1.5200e- � 0.0000 1 21.7988 1 21.7988 1 4.2000e- 1 4.000Oe- i 21.9284 Rise 1 '1 003 1 1 003 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 004 1 004 1 ; 1 1 r------�I------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � - 1 1 1 1 T Apartments Mid i 1.30613e .1 0.0704 1 0.6018 1 0.2561 1 3.8400e- 1 1 0.0487 1 0.0487 1 1 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 1 696.9989 1 696.9989 1 0.0134 1 0.0128 i 701.1408 Rise +007 ; 1 I I 003 _ 1 ; 1 r------71------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � - 1 1 1 1 T General Office Building i 468450 .1 2.5300e- 1 0.0230 1 0.0193 1 1.4000e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1 1.7500e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 0.0000 1 24.9983 1 24.9983 1 4.8000e- 1 4.6000e- i 25.1468 1 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 --- -- ---- --t--_---7-------- • 1 ---------------------1 '1----------------------------------------------------------�____--'-------- 1 1 -------- I I - I - I - I - I - I � I 1 - I - I T____'-_ High Turnover (Sit 8.30736e •1 0.0448 1 0.4072 1 0.3421 1 2.4400e- 1 1 0.0310 1 0.0310 1 1 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 1 443.3124 1 443.3124 1 8.5000e- 1 8.1300e- i 445.9468 Down Restaurant) 1 +006 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 ----------- Hotel ------ r71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �____--'I-------1 1 1 T____'-_ �'1------------------------------------------�-------�---------------� 1 �-------�-------�-------1 1.74095e 9.3900e- 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 1 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 1.7000e- 93.4557 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003003 1 003 1 003 1 __ " '-" "I Quality 1 j-------i-------i-------i-------i--------------- i------- i-----------------------1 �-------�-------�-------' r------71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ------- 1 1 T____'-_ 1 1.84608e •1 9.9500e- 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 1.8100e- 1 99.0993 Restaurant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 __t------71-------1 1 , I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 - 1 I I I T_____-_ Regional Shopping Centers i 91840 .1 5.000Oe- 1 4.5000e- 1 3.7800e- 1 3.000Oe- 1 1 3.4000e- 1 3.4000e- 1 1 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1 4.9009 1 4.9009 1 9.000Oe- 1 9.000Oe- i 4.9301 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . 1 1 005 1 005 1 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 003 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 408494 •1 2.2000e- 1 0.0188 1 8.0100e- 1 1.2000e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1 1.5200e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1.5200e- � 0.0000 1 21.7988 1 21.7988 1 4.2000e- 1 4.000Oe- i 21.9284 Rise 1 '1 0031 1 003 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 004 1 004 1 1 ; 1 r------�I------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , - 1 1 1 1 T Apartments Mid i 1.30613e .1 0.0704 1 0.6018 1 0.2561 1 3.8400e- 1 1 0.0487 1 0.0487 1 1 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 1 696.9989 1 696.9989 1 0.0134 1 0.0128 i 701.1408 Rise +007 ; 1 I I 003 _ 1 ; 1 r------71------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , - 1 1 1 1 T General Office Building i 468450 .1 2.5300e- 1 0.0230 1 0.0193 1 1.4000e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1 1.7500e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 0.0000 1 24.9983 1 24.9983 1 4.8000e- 1 4.6000e- i 25.1468 1 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 --- -- ---- --t--_---7-------- • 1 ---------------------1 '1----------------------------------------------------------�____--'-------- 1 1 -------- I I - I - I - I - I - I , I 1 - I - I T____'-_ High Turnover (Sit 8.30736e .1 0.0448 1 0.4072 1 0.3421 1 2.4400e- 1 1 0.0310 1 0.0310 1 1 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 1 443.3124 1 443.3124 1 8.5000e- 1 8.1300e- i 445.9468 Down Restaurant) 1 +006 i 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 ----------- Hotel ------ r71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , ------- 1 1 ------- �'1------------------------------------------�-------�-----------------------1 �-------�------- -------1 1.74095e •1 9.3900e- 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 1 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 1.7000e- 93.4557 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003. 1 1 003 1 003 1 -""'-""i Quality '1 j-------i-------i-------i-------i--------------- i------- i---------------��1 �-------�-------�-------1 r-------------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , ____--'I-------1 1 1 T_ ----- 71 1.84608e •1 9.9500e- 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 1.8100e- 99.0993 Restaurant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 __t------71-------1 1 , I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 - 1 I I I T_____-_ Regional Shopping Centers i 91840 •1 5.000Oe- 1 4.5000e- 1 3.7800e- 1 3.000Oe- 1 1 3.4000e- 1 3.4000e- 1 1 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1 4.9009 1 4.9009 1 9.000Oe- 1 9.000Oe- i 4.9301 ; 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . 1 1 005 1 005 1 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 003 8 8 j j 8 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low 106010 •i 33.7770 i 1.3900e- 2.9000e- 33.8978 Rise 003 004 i --�------it------ Apartments Mid •---------------- *------- 3.94697e •i 1,257.587 i 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 Rise +006 9 i i i 9 General Office -j--------j------- i 584550 •i 186.2502 i 7.6900e- 1.5900e- 186.9165 Building 003 003 High Turnover (Sit -j - - - - - --- - - - - - - 1.58904e •1 506.3022 i 0.0209 4.3200e- 508.1135 Down Restaurant) i +006 003 -- Hotel -----•--------------- -ii------- i 550308 •1 175.3399 i 7.2400e- 1.5000e- 175.9672 003 003 - Quality •�- - - - - --- - - - - -- - ---- - ii -- - - - - - 353120 •1 112.5116 i 4.6500e- 9.6000e- 112.9141 Restaurant ;1 i 003 i 004 Regional 756000 •i 240.8778 i 9.9400e- 2.0600e- T 241.7395 Shopping Center 003 i 003 Total 2,512.646 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 5 6 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low 106010 •i 33.7770 i 1.3900e- 2.9000e- 33.8978 Rise 003 004 i Apartments Mid • ---------------- 3.94697e •i 1,257.587 i 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 Rise +006 9 i i i 9 General Office -j--------j------- i 584550 •i 186.2502 i 7.6900e- 1.5900e- 186.9165 Building 003 003 High Turnover (Sit -j - - - - - --- - - - - - - 1.58904e •1 506.3022 i 0.0209 4.3200e- 508.1135 Down Restaurant) i +006 003 ---r------ii------- Hotel •--------------- *------- i 550308 •1 175.3399 i 7.2400e- 1.5000e- 175.9672 003 003 --- Quality •�- - - - - --- r------ii------- *------- 353120 •1 112.5116 i 4.6500e- 9.6000e- 112.9141 Restaurant ;1 003 i 004 Regional -------------- 756000 •i 240.8778 i 9.9400e- 2.0600e- 241.7395 Shopping Center 003 i 003 Total 2,512.646 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 5 6 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr PM10 PM10 MT/yr PM2.5 Mitigated •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 � 10.3804 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 i i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 � 220.9670 i 0.0201 � 3.7400e- 1 222.5835 •� 003 MT/yr Architectural •i 0.4137 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating . 003 i Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- - 0.0714 - 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 - 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 0.2950 003 1.6600e- 0.0714 0.0714 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.4137 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating -----------%---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------*------- Consumer �� 4.3998 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 0.0206 i 0.1763 0.0750 i 1.1200e- i 0.0143 i 0.0143 i 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 i 204.1166 204.1166 i 3.9100e- 3.7400e- i 205.3295 •� 003 003 003 i . Landscaping •i 0.3096 i 0.1187 10.3054 i 5.4000e- i 0.0572 i 0.0572 i 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 i 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 i 17.2540 i 004 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.4137 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 4.3998 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 0.0206 i 0.1763 0.0750 i 1.1200e- 0.0143 i 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 i 204.1166 204.1166 i 3.9100e- 3.7400e- 205.3295 003 003 003 i - 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 0.0572 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e0.0572 0.0000 i 16.8504 16.8504 i i i0.0572 i 004 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 11 003 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 C N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •1 585.8052 i 3.0183 i 0.0755 i 683.7567 - - - - - - - - - - - % --------------4--------------- ---------------- - - - - - - - Unmitigated •• 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low 1.62885/ •1 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471 Rise 1.02688 ;i i 003 ' -j--------I------- Apartments Mid 163.5252/ •1 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 Rise 40.0485 -- - - - --- - - - - - - General Office 17.99802/ •i 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- i 61.6019 Building 4.90201 ;i i 003 - ------ ------- -j - - - - - - - --------- - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit 10.9272/ •i 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 62.8482 Down Restaurant) i 0.697482 ;i i 003 ' -------- ------- Hotel i 1.26834/ •1 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- i 7.5079 0.140927 'i 003 -- - - - - --- - - - - - - Quality 2.42827 / •i 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 13.9663 Restaurant i 0.154996 ;i i 003 ---------- --------------- Regional 4.14806 / •i 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 31.9490 Shopping Center 2.54236 ;i i 003 Total 585.8052 j 3.0183 j 0.0755 683.7567 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low 1.62885/ •1 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471 Rise 1.02688 ;i i 003 ' -j--------I------- Apartments Mid 163.5252/ •1 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 Rise 40.0485 -- - - - --- - - - - - - General Office 17.99802/ •i 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- i 61.6019 Building 4.90201 ;i 003 --r- - - - - - ------- -j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit 10.9272/ •i 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 62.8482 Down Restaurant) i 0.697482 ;i i 003 ' -------- ------- Hotel i 1.26834/ •1 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- i 7.5079 0.140927 'i 003 -- - - - - --- - - - - - - Quality 2.42827 / •i 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 13.9663 Restaurant i 0.154996 ;i i 003 ---------- --------------- Regional 4.14806 / •i 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 31.9490 Shopping Center 2.54236 ;i i 003 Total 585.8052 j 3.0183 j 0.0755 683.7567 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual CategoryNear Total CO2 C N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •i 207.8079 i 12.2811 i 0.0000 1 514.8354 - - - - - - - - - - - % --------------+------------------------------ - - - - - - - Unmitigated •• 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low 11.5 •1 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Rise •� i • '-------'------- Apartments Mid i 448.5 •i 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 i 225.5513 Rise •� -------- i -------- ------- '------- GeneralOffice i 41.85 •1 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 i 21.0464 Building i •� - ------ �i------- '------- '------- *------- High Turnover (Sit 428.4 •1 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Down Restaurant)1 •� • '-------'------- Hotel i 27.38 •1 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 i 13.7694 __ i i Quality 7.3 •i 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Restaurant i •� • -------- ------- 58.8 •i 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Shopping Center i •� Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low 11.5 •1 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Rise •� i • '-------'------- Apartments Mid i 448.5 •i 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 i 225.5513 Rise •� -------- i -------- ------- '------- GeneralOffice i 41.85 •1 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 i 21.0464 Building i •� - ------ �i------- '------- '------- *------- High Turnover (Sit 428.4 •1 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Down Restaurant)1 •� '-------'------- Hotel i 27.38 •1 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 i 13.7694 __ i i Quality 7.3 •i 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Restaurant i •� • - ' - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - Regional 58.8 •i 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Shopping Center i •� Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 + 1000sgft ; 1.03 45,000.00 i 0 -- --------------------------_------------------------------_ h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 + High ----------------------- - - - - -- = - - ;------- - - - - --- - - - - -- 1000sgft 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0 ; -----------------------------_------------------------------_- Hotel 50.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = - ---;-------------- - - - - - - Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0 -- - - - - - - - --y----------------_------------------------------_- Qualit Restaurant 8.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = --- ----;-------------- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0 _ -- - - - - - -p--------------------_------------------------------ A artments Low Rise 25.00 + ----------------------------- = --- ----;------------- - - - - - - Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72 -- - - - - - - ---------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------= Apartments artments Mid Rise 975.00 + ----- -------- --------- -i------------------+--------------- Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789 ------------------------------_------------------------------_ ----------------------- - - - - -- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood -burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction -related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWood Mass IT 1,019.20 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 -------------p-------------_------------------- tblFire laces ------------ -------------------------- rW Numbeood r 1.25 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------r----------------------------- ------------------------- NumberWood 48.75 0.00 ---------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------ ------------------------- ST TR r 7.16 6.17 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST TR 6.39 3.87 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- ST TR 2.46 1.39 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST TR r 158.37 79.82 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST TR r 8.19 3.75 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST TR r 94.36 63.99 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST TR r 49.97 10.74 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU TR r 6.07 6.16 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- SU TR 5.86 4.18 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU TR r 1.05 0.69 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- SU TR 131.84 78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips Y ---------------------------- SU TR �-----------------------------T-------------------------- } 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass r 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year Ib/day Ib/day 2021 •i 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 i 6,234.797 6,234.797 1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535 i i i i i 4 i 4 i i 2 2022 •i 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 i 15,251.56 15,251.56 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 i i i i i 74 74 i 88 2023 •i 4.8957 i 26.3317 46.7567 i 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 i 10.6482 2.6381 i 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 i 14,807.52 14,807.52 i 1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15 69 69 21 2024 •1 237.1630 i 9.5575 15.1043 i 0.0244 1.7884 0.4698 i 1.8628 0.4743 i 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 i 2,361.398 2,361.398 i 0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342 9 i 9 i i i 1 Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56 15,251.56 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 11 74 74 88 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year Ib/day Ib/day 2021 •i 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 i 6,234.797 6,234.797 1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535 i i i i i 4 i 4 i i 2 2022 •i 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 i 15,251.56 15,251.56 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 i i i i i 74 74 i 88 2023 •i 4.8957 i 26.3317 46.7567 i 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 i 10.6482 2.6381 i 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 i 14,807.52 14,807.52 i 1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15 69 69 20 2024 •1 237.1630 i 9.5575 15.1043 i 0.0244 1.7884 0.4698 i 1.8628 0.4743 i 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 i 2,361.398 2,361.398 i 0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342 9 i 9 i i i 1 0.00 Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56 15,251.56 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 74 74 88 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Area •i 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 i i � � i � i i 50 50 i 92 --------------- Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 i 2 i i i 7 Mobile •1 9.8489 i 45.4304 114.8495 i 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 i 46.2951 12.2950 i 0.3119 12.6070 i 50,306.60 50,306.60 i 2.1807 50,361.12 08 34 i 34 � � i Total 41.1168 Total 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 76,811.18 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 11 77,025.87 762 16 16 16 16 86 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Area •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 88.4430 i 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 i 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 �� 50 50 i 92 ■ Eegy 0.5292 0.52928,355.983 , , 405.638 '� i i i i i i i i ■ 2 i 2 i i i 7 Mobile 9.8489 i 45.4304 114.8495 i 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 i 46.2951 12.2950 i 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 50,306.60 i 2.1807 i 50,361.12 i 34 34 i 08 ■ Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 76,811.18 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 16 16 86 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e !10/13/2021 111/9/2021 1 51 20: A PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 45: A i _ 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction !1/12/2022 Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3/19/2024 5, 35 - 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Demolition !Demolition !9/1/2021 110/12/2021 51 30: A i _ 2 Site Preparation +Site Preparation !10/13/2021 111/9/2021 1 51 20: A i _ 3 •Grading +Grading !11/10/2021 11/11/2022 1 51 45: A i _ 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction !1/12/2022 112/12/2023 1 51 500: A i _ 5 :Paving +Paving !12/13/2023 11/30/2024 1 51 35: + I 1 1 6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5, 35 - Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators 1 3 8.001 158• 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247• 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers 1 31 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 41 8.001 97• 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators 1 21 8.001 158• 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders 1 11 8.001 187• 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers 1 11 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading 'Scrapers ; 21 8.001 367• 0.48 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 21 8.001 97• 0.37 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 11 7.001 231, 0.29 �_ - - - --------------------------------------L Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 31 8.001 89• 0.20 + _ __i i _ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 11 8.001 _ 84• 0.74 _ �_ - - - - --------------------------------------L Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 31 7.001 97• 0.37 + __ i i Building Construction 'Welders 1 11 8.001 46• 0.45 ------------------------------------------ �- - - - - ----------- Paving +Pavers 1 21 8.001 130• 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment 1 21 8.001 132• 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers 1 21 8.001 80• 0.38 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------F------------ r ------------- ----------- Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 • 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Phase NameI Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00 0.001 458.00; 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix IHDT_Mix EHHDT ------------- Site Preparation 7; -----_-_, 18.00: --------i 0.001 0.00: --------- 14.70: ------------------------ 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix --------------------- ;HDT_Mix ?HHDT --------------- ° �- Grading -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 14.70: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT I- ----------------A-------------- Construction v 9; i ----------i- 801.00 1 --------i 143.001 :Building 0.00: ---------' --------- 14.70: ------------------------�---------- 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix 1 -------- ;HHDT �- A----------- Paving 6; - i------------ 15.00: 1 --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: '---------� 14.70: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT 1.5513 4.8588 1 1.4411 f I Architectural Coating ; 1; 160.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust ;1 , , , , 3.3074 , 0.0000 , 3.3074 , 0.5008 , 0.0000 ; 0.5008 � i , 0.0000 , , i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 , 31.4407 , 21.5650 , 0.0388 , , 1.5513 , 1.5513 , , 1.4411 ; 1.4411 :-3-,747.944 , 3,747.944 , 1.0549 , i 3,774.317 9 1 9 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 1,292.241 0.0877 i 1,294.433 i i � i i � � i '� i i i i i i i i • 3 i 3 i i i 7 Off -Road •i 3.1651 i 31.4407 i 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 i 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 i i 3,774.317 '� i i i i i i i i i i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker•i 0.0643 i 0.0442 i 0.6042 1.7100e- i 0.1677 1.3500e- 0.1690 i 0.0445 1.2500e- 0.0457 i 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e- i 1 170.9413 003 003 003 003 i 21.5650 Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056 0.0927 1,465.375 9 9 8 17,463.056 8 1 0 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 i 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 i 31.4407 i 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 i 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 i i 3,774.317 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 9 9 i 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 i 1,292.241 1,292.241 0.0877 i 1,294.433 i i � i i • � � i '� i i i i i i i i • 3 i 3 i i i 7 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 � 0.0380 i � 2.0445 � 2.0445 i � 1.8809 � 1.8809 � i 3,685.656 � 3,685.656 � 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 '� i i i i i i i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker•i 0.0643 i 0.0442 i 0.6042 1.7100e- i 0.1677 1.3500e- 0.1690 i 0.0445 1.2500e- 0.0457 i 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e- i 1 170.9413 003 003 003 003 i 21.1543 Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056 0.0927 1,465.375 9 9 8 17,463.056 8 1 0 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 � 0.0380 i � 2.0445 � 2.0445 i � 1.8809 � 1.8809 � i 3,685.656 � 3,685.656 � 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 '� i i i i i i i i • gi 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0772 i 0.0530 i 0.7250 2.0600e- i 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 i 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- i i 205.1296 003 003 003003 i 21.1543 Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e- 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- 205.1296 003 003 9 003 3 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 i 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 gi 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 � 0.0620 i � 1.9853 � 1.9853 i � 1.8265 � 1.8265 � i 6,007.043 � 6,007.043 � 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0772 i 0.0530 i 0.7250 2.0600e- i 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 i 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- i i 205.1296 003 003 003003 i 30.8785 Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e- 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- 205.1296 003 003 4 003 4 003 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 � 0.0620 i � 1.9853 � 1.9853 i � 1.8265 � 1.8265 � i 6,007.043 � 6,007.043 � 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 777 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0857 i 0.0589 i 0.8056 2.2900e- i 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 i 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- i i 227.9217 003 003 003 003 i 30.8785 Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e- 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- 227.9217 003 003 4 003 4 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 � 0.0621 i � 1.6349 � 1.6349 i � 1.5041 1.5041 � i 6,011.410 � 6,011.410 � 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0857 i 0.0589 i 0.8056 2.2900e- i 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 i 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- i i 227.9217 003 003 003 003 i 29.0415 Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e- 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- 227.9217 003 003 5 003 8 003 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 � 0.0621 i � 1.6349 � 1.6349 i � 1.5041 1.5041 � i 6,011.410 � 6,011.410 � 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 5i 5 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 i 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0803 i 0.0532 i 0.7432 2.2100e- i 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 i 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- i i 219.8941 003 003 003 003 i 29.0415 Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e- 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- 219.8941 003 003 5 003 8 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 i 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 5 i 5 i 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Total Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 15.6156 16.3634 Worker •i 0.0803 i 0.0532 i 0.7432 2.2100e- i 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 i 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- i i 219.8941 003 003 003 003 i 0.8090 Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e- 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- 219.8941 003 6 003 003 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i 2,569.632 i i i i i 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 6 i 6 i i i 2 Vendor •i 0.4079 i 13.2032 i 3.4341 � 0.0364 i 0.9155 � 0.0248 0.9404 i 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 3,896.548 0.2236 i i 3,902.138 2 i 2 i i i 4 15.6156 Worker •i 3.2162 i 2.1318 i 29.7654 0.0883 i 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 i 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 i 8,800.685 8,800.685 0.2429 i i 8,806.758 7 i 7 i i i 2 Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23 12,697.23 0.4665 12,708.89 j j j j 2 39 39 j 66 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 i 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i i i i i i 9 9 i 1 Vendor •i 0.4079 i 13.2032 i 3.4341 � 0.0364 i 0.9155 � 0.0248 0.9404 i 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 3,896.548 0.2236 i i 3,902.138 2 i 2 i i i 4 14.3849 Worker •i 3.2162 i 2.1318 i 29.7654 0.0883 i 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 i 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 i 8,800.685 8,800.685 0.2429 i i 8,806.758 7 i 7 i i i 2 Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23 12,697.23 0.4665 j 12,708.89 j j j j j j j 1 39 39 j 66 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 � i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 i i i i i i i i 9 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.658T 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 j j j j j j 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 i 9 i 1 Vendor •i 0.3027 i 10.0181 i 3.1014 0.0352 i 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 i 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 i 3,773.876 3,773.876 0.1982 i i 3,778.830 2 i 2 i i i 0 14.3849 Worker •i 3.0203 i 1.9287 i 27.4113 0.0851 i 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 i 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440 8,478.440 0.2190 i i 8,483.916 8 i 8 i i i 0 Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 11 12,252.31 12,252.31 0.4172 12,262.74 9 9 1 70 70 60 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 9 i 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 11 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 1 i 1 i i i 6 Vendor •i 0.3027 i 10.0181 i 3.1014 0.0352 i 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 i 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 i 3,773.876 3,773.876 0.1982 i i 3,778.830 2 i 2 i i 1 0 Worker •i 3.0203 i 1.9287 i 27.4113 0.0851 i 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 i 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440 8,478.440 0.2190 i i 8,483.916 8 i 8 i i i 0 10.1917 Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 0.7140 12,252.31 12,252.31 0.4172 12,262.74 1 1 70 70 60 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 i 10.1917 i 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i i 2,225.433 1 i 1 i i i 6 Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0566 i 0.0361 i 0.5133 1.5900e- i 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- i i 158.8748 003 003 003 003 i 10.1917 Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 0.7140 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- 158.8748 003 003 003 1 6 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 i 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i 2,225.433 i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 11 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0566 i 0.0361 i 0.5133 1.5900e- i 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- i i 158.8748 003 003 003 003 i 14.6258 Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- 158.8748 003 003 2 003 3 003 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 i 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0535 i 0.0329 i 0.4785 1.5400e- i 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 i 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- i i 153.9458 003 003 003 003 i 9.5246 Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e- 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 0.7140 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- 153.9458 003 003 003 2 3 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 i 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i 2,225.396 i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 11 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 i 2.9700e- i i 0.0609 i 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 i 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0535 i 0.0329 i 0.4785 1.5400e- i 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 i 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- i i 153.9458 003 003 003 003 i 1.8101 Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e- 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- 153.9458 003 003 003 003 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Archit. Coating •i 236.4115 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 i 2.9700e- i i 0.0609 i 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 i 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ��--------------------------------------------'-------------------------------------� -------------'--------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.5707 i 0.3513 i 5.1044 0.0165 i 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 i 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 i 1,641.085 1,641.085 0.0401 i i 1,642.088 2 i 2 i i i 6 1.8101 Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 777 1,641.085 1,641.085 0.0401 1,642.088 003 2 2 6 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Archit. Coating •1 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � ---------------------------------------------'-------------------------------------� -------------'--------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.5707 i 0.3513 i 5.1044 0.0165 i 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 i 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 i 1,641.085 1,641.085 0.0401 i i 1,642.088 2 i 2 i i i 6 Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 777 1,641.085 1,641.085 0.0401 1,642.088 2 2 6 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 4.2 Trip Summary Information ROG I NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category 154.00 Ib/day 506,227 ......................................------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 Ib/day ---------- -----------------------:------------------------ 4075.50 Mitigated •i 9.8489 i 45.4304 114.8495 i 0.4917 i 45.9592 i 0.3360 46.2951 i 12.2950 � 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 50,306.60 2.1807 i i 50,361.12 •� High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) .................................................. ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 ---------- -r 2817.72 - - ------- --------------------------------------------------- . 34 34 i 08 Ho.............� .. ---_ Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 - 50,306.60 - 2.1807 - 50,361.12 461.20 ---- - - - - -- - 707,488 ----------------------: 707,488 ------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 34 34 08 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 145.75 ; 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 ......................................------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 ---------- ; 3,773.25 ---------- -----------------------:------------------------ 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 ......................................----------- General Office Building ......................................--- ; 288.45 ----- ; 62.55 ------------ -r ----------- --------------------------------------------------- 31.05 -- ---- - ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- ---- High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) .................................................. ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 ---------- -r 2817.72 - - ------- --------------------------------------------------- 3,413,937 3,413,937 Ho.............� .. ---_ ----192.00 1--T-----------y--------------3----------- 160.00 445,703 Quality Restaurant ......................................------------ + 501.12 511.92 ---------- 461.20 ---- - - - - -- - 707,488 ----------------------: 707,488 ------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H -W or C -W I H -S or C -C I H -O or C -NW IH -W or C -W I H -S or C -C I H -O or C -NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 Y 40.20 : 1 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------__ 0.021166; __ __ ? _ T _ -------- ---- ------------- General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 ; 19 4 ....................... r----------- High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60 ---------- 8.40 ---------- 6.90 --------i'--------t----------- 8.50 1 72.50 ---------- 19.00 37 --------- ----------------- 20 43 .......:......r........�------------------ -- ... ? r--------------.... T.. -------- .r.. -------- ---- r... ------------- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 ; 58 ; 38 ; 4 .......................r---------- Quality Restaurant 16.60 ---------T---------. 8.40 6.90 --------i'--------t----------- 12.00 1 69.00 ---------- 19.00 38 --------- ----------------- 18 44 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.209971 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088} 0.044216; 0.209971 0.116369; 0.014033; 0.006332 0.021166; 0.033577 0.002613; 0.001817 0.005285; 0.0007121 0.000821 r Apartments Mid Rise 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 r General Office Building 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.209971 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712: 0.000821 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5430881 0.044216, 0.209971, 0.116369, 0.014033, 0.006332, 0.021166, 0.033577, 0.002613, 0.001817, 0.005285, 0.000712: 0.000821 Restaurant) ....................... f -------- --------- _ ..... _ . Hotel 0.543088 r 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------------_-------- --------------- Quality Restaurant 0.5430881 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088. 0.044216' 0.209971' 0.116369' 0.014033' 0.006332' 0.021166' 0.033577' 0.002613' 0.001817' 0.005285' 0.000712' 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer ROG I NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day NaturalGas •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 i 4.2573 0.0418 i i 0.5292 0.5292 i i 0.5292 0.5292 + i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 i 0.1532 1 8,405.638 Mitigated ;i . i 2 2 i 7 NaturalGas 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 • 8,355.983 • 0.1602 0.1532 • 8,405.638 Unmitigated 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr Ib/day Ib/day Apartments Low i 1119.16 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1 ----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�-------------- r------71-------1 -+------'I T' ------ Apartments Mid 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 1 35784.3 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1------------------------------------------�-------�-----------------------1------- --------------------- r------ � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1283.42 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 � 1 ------- ------- -------1 '1 ------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- ------7------- r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22759.9 •1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r-------1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4769.72 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 11 1 1 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -t------71------_1 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I � �-------I-------1 I I T'------ Quality 1 5057.75 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 __x------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � v 1 1 1 1 T""--- 251.616 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr Ib/day Ib/day Apartments Low i 1.11916 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1 ----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�-------------- r------71-------1 -�------'I T' ------ Apartments Mid 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 1 i 35.7843 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1 1 ------- ----------------------------- -------�-------�-----------------------1------- --------------------- r------71_----__ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1.28342 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 � 1 ------- ------- -------1 '1 ------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- ------7------- r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22.7599 .1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r------�1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4.76972 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 1 1 I I 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -r------71-------1 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �-------I-------1 1 1 T'------ Quality 5.05775 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 --t------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 T""--- 0.251616 •1 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 077 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG N7CO CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio -0O2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day PM10 Ib/day Total Mitigated •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 � 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 i i 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 Subcategory Ib/day Ib/day 50 50 92 -------------i i Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 • 18,148.59 - 0.4874 • 0.3300 • 18,259.11 Landscaping •i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 i 152.1542 003 i i i i i i i i i • Total 30.5020 50 50 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory Ib/day Ib/day Architectural •i 2.2670 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating•' ' i i- -----------%---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- -------*------- Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products •' ' i . Hearth •i 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 18,000.00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 i i i i i i i 00 00 50 Landscaping •i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 i 152.1542 003 i i i i i i i i i • Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 50 50 92 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory Ib/day Ib/day Architectural •i 2.2670 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 1.6500 i 14.1000 6.0000 i 0.0900 1.1400 i 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 i 18,000.00 18,000.00 i 0.3450 1 0.3300 1 18,106.96 00 00 50 ---- -- - - - ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --- - -- ------------------------------ Landscaping i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 152.1542 003 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 j j F-777000 50 50 j 92 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Fire Pumos and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 + 1000sgft ; 1.03 45,000.00 i 0 -- --------------------------_------------------------------_ h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 + High ----------------------- - - - - -- = - - ;------- - - - - --- - - - - -- 1000sgft 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0 ; -----------------------------_------------------------------_- Hotel 50.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = - ---;-------------- - - - - - - Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0 -- - - - - - - - --y----------------_------------------------------_- Qualit Restaurant 8.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = --- ----;-------------- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0 _ -- - - - - - -p--------------------_------------------------------ A artments Low Rise 25.00 + ----------------------------- = --- ----;------------- - - - - - - Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72 -- - - - - - - ---------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------= Apartments artments Mid Rise 975.00 + ----- -------- --------- -i------------------+--------------- Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789 ------------------------------_------------------------------_ ----------------------- - - - - -- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood -burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction -related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWood Mass IT 1,019.20 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 -------------p-------------_------------------- tblFire laces ------------ -------------------------- rW Numbeood r 1.25 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------r----------------------------- ------------------------- NumberWood 48.75 0.00 ---------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------ ------------------------- ST TR r 7.16 6.17 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST TR 6.39 3.87 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- ST TR 2.46 1.39 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST TR r 158.37 79.82 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST TR r 8.19 3.75 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST TR r 94.36 63.99 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST TR r 49.97 10.74 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU TR r 6.07 6.16 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- SU TR 5.86 4.18 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU TR r 1.05 0.69 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- SU TR 131.84 78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips Y ---------------------------- SU TR �-----------------------------T-------------------------- } 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass r 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year Ib/day Ib/day 2021 •i 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0.0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 i 6,221.493 6,221.493 1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221 i i i i i � 7 i 7 i i 4 2022 •i 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 i 14,630.30 14,630.30 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 i i i i i 99 99 63 2023 •i 5.2705 i 26.4914 � 44.5936 i 0.1413 � 9.8688 � 0.7800 i 10.6488 � 2.6381 i 0.7328 3.3708 � 0.0000 i 14,210.34 � 14,210.34 i 1.0230 � 0.0000 � 14,235.91 24 i 24 60 -------------------i ------------------------------------------------------- ----------------*-------� -------------------------------*------- 2024 •1 237.2328 i 9.5610 15.0611 i 0.0243 1.7884 0.4698 i 1.8628 0.4743 i 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 i 2,352.417 2,352.417 i 0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355 8 i 8 i i i 0 Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30 14,630.30 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 11 99 99 63 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year Ib/day Ib/day 2021 •i 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0.0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 i 6,221.493 6,221.493 1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221 i i i i i � 7 i 7 i i 4 2022 •i 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 i 14,630.30 14,630.30 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 i i i i i 99 99 63 2023 •i 5.2705 i 26.4914 � 44.5936 i 0.1413 � 9.8688 � 0.7800 i 10.6488 � 2.6381 i 0.7328 3.3708 � 0.0000 i 14,210.34 � 14,210.34 i 1.0230 � 0.0000 � 14,235.91 24 i 24 60 -i ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------*-------� -------------------------------*------- 2024 •1 237.2328 i 9.5610 15.0611 i 0.0243 1.7884 0.4698 i 1.8628 0.4743 i 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 i 2,352.417 2,352.417 i 0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355 8 i 8 i i i 0 0.00 Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30 14,630.30 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 99 99 63 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Area •i 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 i i � � i � i i 50 50 i 92 Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 i 2 i i i 7 Mobile •i 9.5233 i 45.9914 � 110.0422 i 0.4681 � 45.9592 � 0.3373 i 46.2965 � 12.2950 i 0.3132 12.6083 i 47,917.80 � 47,917.80 i 2.1953 � � 47,972.68 '� 05 05 i 39 Mobile 9.5233 i 45.9914 110.0422 i 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 i 46.2965 12.2950 i 0.3132 12.6083 � 47,917.80 47,917.80 i 2.1953 47,972.68 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 74,422.37 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 0.4832 74,637.44 87 87 87 87 17 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Area •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 88.4430 i 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 i 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 �� 50 50 i 92 ■ Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 i 8,405.638 '� i i i i i i i i ■ 2 i 2 i i i 7 Mobile 9.5233 i 45.9914 110.0422 i 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 i 46.2965 12.2950 i 0.3132 12.6083 � 47,917.80 47,917.80 i 2.1953 47,972.68 i 05 05 i 39 ■ Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 74,422.37 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 87 87 17 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e !10/13/2021 111/9/2021 1 51 20: A PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 45: A i _ 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction !1/12/2022 Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3/19/2024 5, 35 - 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Demolition !Demolition !9/1/2021 110/12/2021 51 30: A i _ 2 Site Preparation +Site Preparation !10/13/2021 111/9/2021 1 51 20: A i _ 3 •Grading +Grading !11/10/2021 11/11/2022 1 51 45: A i _ 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction !1/12/2022 112/12/2023 1 51 500: A i _ 5 :Paving +Paving !12/13/2023 11/30/2024 1 51 35: + I 1 1 6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5, 35 - Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators 1 3 8.001 158• 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247• 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers 1 31 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 41 8.001 97• 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators 1 21 8.001 158• 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders 1 11 8.001 187• 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers 1 11 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading 'Scrapers ; 21 8.001 367• 0.48 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 21 8.001 97• 0.37 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 11 7.001 231, 0.29 �_ - - - --------------------------------------L Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 31 8.001 89• 0.20 + _ __i i _ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 11 8.001 _ 84• 0.74 _ �_ - - - - --------------------------------------L Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 31 7.001 97• 0.37 + __ i i Building Construction 'Welders 1 11 8.001 46• 0.45 ------------------------------------------ �- - - - - ----------- Paving +Pavers 1 21 8.001 130• 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment 1 21 8.001 132• 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers 1 21 8.001 80• 0.38 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------F------------ r ------------- ----------- Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 • 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Phase NameI Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00 0.001 458.00; 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix (HHDT ------------- Site Preparation 7; -----_--, 18.00: --------i 0.001 0.00: --------- 14.70: ------------------------ 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix --------------------- ;HDT_Mix ;HHDT --------------- ° �- Grading -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 14.70: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT I- ----------------A-------------- Construction v 9; i ----------i- 801.00 1 --------i 143.001 :Building 0.00: ---------' --------- 14.70: ------------------------�---------- 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix 1 -------- ;HHDT �- A----------- Paving 6; - i------------ 15.00: 1 --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: '---------� 14.70: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT 1.5513 4.8588 1 1.4411 f I Architectural Coating ; 1; 160.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust ;1 , , , , 3.3074 , 0.0000 , 3.3074 , 0.5008 , 0.0000 ; 0.5008 � i , 0.0000 , , i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 , 31.4407 , 21.5650 , 0.0388 , , 1.5513 , 1.5513 , , 1.4411 ; 1.4411 i 3,747.944 , 3,747.944 , 1.0549 , i 3,774.317 9 1 9 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 1,269.855 0.0908 i 1,272.125 i i � i � i i '� i i i i i i i i • 5 i 5 i i i 2 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • 9 9 i 4 Worker•i 0.0715 i 0.0489 i 0.5524 1.6100e- i 0.1677 1.3500e- 0.1690 i 0.0445 1.2500e- 0.0457 i 160.8377 160.8377 4.7300e- i 1 160.9560 003 003 003 003 1 31.4407 Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1.0549 1,430.693 1,430.693 0.0955 1,433.081 9 9 2 2 2 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 i 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 i 31.4407 i 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 i 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 i i 3,774.317 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 9 9 i 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 i 1,269.855 1,269.855 0.0908 i 1,272.125 i i � i � i • i '� i i i i i i i i • 5 i 5 i i i 2 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i i i i i i • gi 9 3 Worker•i 0.0715 i 0.0489 i 0.5524 1.6100e- i 0.1677 1.3500e- 0.1690 i 0.0445 1.2500e- 0.0457 i 160.8377 160.8377 4.7300e- i 1 160.9560 003 003 003 003 1 40.4971 Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1.1920 1,430.693 1,430.693 0.0955 1,433.081 9 9 2 2 2 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 � 0.0380 i � 2.0445 � 2.0445 i � 1.8809 � 1.8809 � i 3,685.656 � 3,685.656 � 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 '� i i i i i i i i • gi 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0858 i 0.0587 i 0.6629 1.9400e- i 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 i 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- i i 193.1472 003 003 003 003 i 21.1543 Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e- 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- 193.1472 003 003 9 003 3 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 i 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 gi g 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 � 0.0620 i � 1.9853 � 1.9853 i � 1.8265 � 1.8265 � i 6,007.043 � 6,007.043 � 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0858 i 0.0587 i 0.6629 1.9400e- i 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 i 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- i i 193.1472 003 003 003 003 i 30.8785 Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e- 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- 193.1472 003 003 4 003 4 003 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 � 0.0620 i � 1.9853 � 1.9853 i � 1.8265 � 1.8265 � i 6,007.043 � 6,007.043 � 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 777 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0954 i 0.0652 i 0.7365 2.1500e- i 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 i 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- i i 214.6080 003 003 003 003 i 30.8785 Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e- 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- 214.6080 003 003 4 003 4 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 � 0.0621 i � 1.6349 � 1.6349 i � 1.5041 1.5041 � i 6,011.410 � 6,011.410 � 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0954 i 0.0652 i 0.7365 2.1500e- i 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 i 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- i i 214.6080 003 003 003 003 i 29.0415 Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e- 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- 214.6080 003 003 5 003 8 003 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 � 0.0621 i � 1.6349 � 1.6349 i � 1.5041 1.5041 � i 6,011.410 � 6,011.410 � 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 5i 5 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 i 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0896 i 0.0589 i 0.6784 2.0800e- i 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 i 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- i i 207.0563 003 003 003003 i 29.0415 Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e- 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- 207.0563 003 003 5 003 8 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 i 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 5 i 5 i 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Total Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 15.6156 16.3634 Worker •i 0.0896 i 0.0589 i 0.6784 2.0800e- i 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 i 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- i i 207.0563 003 003 003003 i 0.8090 Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e- 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- 207.0563 003 6 003 003 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i 2,569.632 i i i i i 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.4284 i 13.1673 i 3.8005 � 0.0354 i 0.9155 � 0.0256 0.9412 i 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 3,789.075 0.2381 i i 3,795.028 0 i 0 i i i 3 15.6156 Worker •i 3.5872 i 2.3593 i 27.1680 0.0832 i 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 i 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 i 8,286.901 8,286.901 0.2282 i i 8,292.605 3 i 3 i i i 8 Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97 12,075.97 0.4663 12,087.63 6 6 2 63 63 41 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 i 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.4284 i 13.1673 i 3.8005 � 0.0354 i 0.9155 � 0.0256 0.9412 i 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 3,789.075 0.2381 i i 3,795.028 0 i 0 i i i 3 14.3849 Worker •i 3.5872 i 2.3593 i 27.1680 0.0832 i 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 i 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 i 8,286.901 8,286.901 0.2282 i i 8,292.605 3 i 3 i i i 8 Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97 12,075.97 0.4663 j 12,087.63 j j j 9 9 1 63 63 41 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 � i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 i i i i i i i i 9 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.658T 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 j j j j j j 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 i 9 i 1 Total Vendor •i 0.3183 i 9.9726 i 3.3771 0.0343 i 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 i 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 i 3,671.400 3,671.400 0.2096 i i 3,676.641 7 i 7 i i i 7 16.2440 Worker •i 3.3795 i 2.1338 i 24.9725 0.0801 i 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 i 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731 � 7,983.731 0.2055 i i 7,988.868 8 i 8 i i i 3 0.6997 Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13 11,655.13 0.4151 11,665.50 j 9 j j j 25 25 j 99 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 9 i 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 11 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 Vendor •i 0.3183 i 9.9726 i 3.3771 0.0343 i 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 i 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 i 3,671.400 3,671.400 0.2096 i i 3,676.641 7 i 7 i i i 7 Worker •i 3.3795 i 2.1338 i 24.9725 0.0801 i 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 i 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731 � 7,983.731 0.2055 i i 7,988.868 8 i 8 i i i 3 10.1917 Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 0.7140 11,655.13 11,655.13 0.4151 11,665.50 j j j j 1 25 25 j 99 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i 2,225.433 i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0633 i 0.0400 i 0.4677 � 1.5000e- i 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- i i 149.6043 003 003 003 003 i 1.0327 Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e- 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 2,207.584 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- 11 149.6043 003 003 003 1 1 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 i 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i 2,225.433 i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 11 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0633 i 0.0400 i 0.4677 � 1.5000e- i 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- i i 149.6043 003 003 003 003 i 9.5246 Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e- 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 0.7140 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- 149.6043 003 003 003 2 3 003 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 i 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 i i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 11 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0601 i 0.0364 i 0.4354 1.4500e- i 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- i i 144.9587 003 003 003 003 i 9.5246 Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e- 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 0.7140 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- 144.9587 003 003 003 2 3 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 i 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i 2,225.396 i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 11 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 i 2.9700e- i i 0.0609 i 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 i 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0601 i 0.0364 i 0.4354 1.4500e- i 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- i i 144.9587 003 003 003 003 i 1.8101 Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e- 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- 144.9587 003 003 003 003 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Archit. Coating •i 236.4115 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 i 2.9700e- i i 0.0609 i 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 i 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Off -Road •1 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.6406 i 0.3886 i 4.6439 0.0155 i 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 i 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 i 1,545.286 1,545.286 0.0376 1,546.226 0 i 0 i i i 2 1.8101 Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 1,545.286 0.0376 7546.226 003 0 0 2 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Archit. Coating •1 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •1 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.6406 i 0.3886 i 4.6439 0.0155 i 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 i 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 i 1,545.286 1,545.286 0.0376 1,546.226 0 i 0 i i i 2 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 1,545.286 0.0376 7546.226 =.t.' 0 0 2 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 4.2 Trip Summary Information ROG I NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category 154.00 Ib/day 506,227 ......................................------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 Ib/day ---------- -----------------------:------------------------ 4075.50 Mitigated •i 9.5233 i 45.9914 i 110.0422 i 0.4681 45.9592 i 0.3373 , 46.2965 i 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 i 47,917.80 47,917.80 2.1953 i : 47,972.68 •� High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) .................................................. ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 ---------- -r 2817.72 - - ------- --------------------------------------------------- . 05 05 i 39 Ho.............� .. ---_ Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 - 47,917.80 47,917.80 • 2.1953 - 47,972.68 461.20 ---- - - - - -- - 707,488 ----------------------: 707,488 ------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 05 05 39 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 145.75 ; 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 ......................................------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 ---------- ; 3,773.25 ---------- -----------------------:------------------------ 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 ......................................----------- General Office Building ......................................--- ; 288.45 ----- ; 62.55 ------------ -r ----------- --------------------------------------------------- 31.05 -- ---- - ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- ---- High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) .................................................. ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 ---------- -r 2817.72 - - ------- --------------------------------------------------- 3,413,937 3,413,937 Ho.............� .. ---_ ----192.00 1--T-----------y--------------3----------- 160.00 445,703 Quality Restaurant ......................................------------ + 501.12 511.92 ---------- 461.20 ---- - - - - -- - 707,488 ----------------------: 707,488 ------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H -W or C -W I H -S or C -C I H -O or C -NW IH -W or C -W I H -S or C -C I H -O or C -NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 Y 40.20 : 1 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------__ 0.021166; __ __ ? _ T _ -------- ---- ------------- General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 ; 19 4 ....................... r----------- High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60 ---------- 8.40 ---------- 6.90 --------i'--------t----------- 8.50 1 72.50 ---------- 19.00 37 --------- ----------------- 20 43 .......:......r........�------------------ -- ... ? r--------------.... T.. -------- .r.. -------- ---- r... ------------- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 ; 58 ; 38 ; 4 .......................r---------- Quality Restaurant 16.60 ---------T---------. 8.40 6.90 --------i'--------t----------- 12.00 1 69.00 ---------- 19.00 38 --------- ----------------- 18 44 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.209971 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088} 0.044216; 0.209971 0.116369; 0.014033; 0.006332 0.021166; 0.033577 0.002613; 0.001817 0.005285; 0.0007121 0.000821 r Apartments Mid Rise 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 r General Office Building 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.209971 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712: 0.000821 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5430881 0.044216, 0.209971, 0.116369, 0.014033, 0.006332, 0.021166, 0.033577, 0.002613, 0.001817, 0.005285, 0.000712: 0.000821 Restaurant) ....................... f -------- --------- _ ..... _ . Hotel 0.543088 r 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------------_-------- --------------- Quality Restaurant 0.5430881 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088. 0.044216' 0.209971' 0.116369' 0.014033' 0.006332' 0.021166' 0.033577' 0.002613' 0.001817' 0.005285' 0.000712' 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter ROG I NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day NaturalGas •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 i 4.2573 0.0418 i i 0.5292 0.5292 i i 0.5292 0.5292 + i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 i 0.1532 1 8,405.638 Mitigated ;i . i 2 2 i 7 NaturalGas 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 • 8,355.983 • 0.1602 0.1532 • 8,405.638 Unmitigated 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr Ib/day Ib/day Apartments Low i 1119.16 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1 ----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�-------------- r------71-------1 -+------'I T' ------ Apartments Mid 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 1 35784.3 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1------------------------------------------�-------�-----------------------1------- --------------------- r------ � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1283.42 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 � 1 ------- ------- -------1 '1 ------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- ------7------- r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22759.9 •1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r-------1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4769.72 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 11 1 1 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -t------71------_1 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I � �-------I-------1 I I T'------ Quality 1 5057.75 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 __x------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � v 1 1 1 1 T""--- 251.616 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr Ib/day Ib/day Apartments Low i 1.11916 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1 ----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�-------------- r------71-------1 -�------'I T' ------ Apartments Mid 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 1 i 35.7843 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1 1 ------- ----------------------------- -------�-------�-----------------------1------- --------------------- r------71_----__ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1.28342 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 � 1 ------- ------- -------1 '1 ------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- ------7------- r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22.7599 .1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r------�1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4.76972 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 1 1 I I 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -r------71-------1 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �-------I-------1 1 1 T'------ Quality 5.05775 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 --t------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 T""--- 0.251616 •1 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 077 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG N7CO CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio -0O2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day PM10 Ib/day Total Mitigated •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 � 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 i i 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 Subcategory Ib/day Ib/day 50 50 92 -------------i i Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 • 18,148.59 - 0.4874 • 0.3300 • 18,259.11 Landscaping •i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 i 152.1542 003 i i i i i i i i i • Total 30.5020 50 50 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory Ib/day Ib/day Architectural •i 2.2670 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating•' ' i i- -----------%---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- -------*------- Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products •' ' i . Hearth •i 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 18,000.00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 i i i i i i i 00 00 50 Landscaping •i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 i 152.1542 003 i i i i i i i i i • Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 50 50 92 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory Ib/day Ib/day Architectural •i 2.2670 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 1.6500 i 14.1000 6.0000 i 0.0900 1.1400 i 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 i 18,000.00 18,000.00 i 0.3450 1 0.3300 1 18,106.96 00 00 50 ---- -- - - - ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --- - -- ------------------------------ Landscaping i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 152.1542 003 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 j j F-777000 50 50 j 92 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Fire Pumos and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 + 1000sgft ; 1.03 45,000.00 i 0 ---------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- - h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 + High = — — ;-------------------- 1000sgft ; 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0 -----------------------------_------------------------------ _------------------------------ Hotel 50.00 + = — -- —;------------- ------- Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0 -----------y----------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- Quality Restaurant 8.00 + = --- --- —;------------- --------------- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0 ----------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- Apartments Low Rise 25.00 + = --- --------- —;------------- Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72 -----------------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------=-----------------------i------------------+--------------- Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789 ------------------------------ _------------------------------ _----------------------------- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood -burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction -related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Trips and VMT - Local hire provision Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces -----r------------------------------ FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- NumberWood 1.25 0.00 -------------p-------------_------------------- tblFire laces ------------ ------------------------- Numbeood r 48.75 0.00 rW ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------r----------------------------- -------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tbITripsAndVMT ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tbITripsAndVMT ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST TR r 7.16 6.17 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST TR 6.39 3.87 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST TR r 2.46 1.39 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- ST TR 158.37 79.82 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual tblVehicleTrips ST -TR 8.19 3.75 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips Y ---------------------------- ST TR �-----------------------------T-------------------------- } 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST TR } 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 131.84 78.27 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass r 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 •i 0.1704 i 1.8234 � 1.1577 i 2.3800e- 0.4141 � 0.0817 i 0.4958 0.1788 i 0.0754 0.2542 0.0000 i 210.7654 210.7654 i 0.0600 0.0000 212.2661 003 2022 •i 0.5865 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 i 1,418.655 1,418.655 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 i i i i i 2023 •i 0.5190 i 3.2850 � 4.7678 i 0.0147 � 0.8497 � 0.0971 i 0.9468 � 0.2283 i 0.0912 0.3195 � 0.0000 i 1,342.441 1,342.441 i 0.1115 0.0000 1,345.229 2 i 2 i i 1 2024 •i 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.000Oe- 0.0221 6.3900e- 0.0285 5.8700e- 5.9700e- 0.0118 0.0000 i 44.6355 44.6355 7.8300e- 0.0000 44.8311 i i i i i 004 003 003 003 003 i Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 1,418.655 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 11 4 4 5 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Mitigated Construction Quarter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 5-31-2022 1.1499 I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 1.1415 1.1415 6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0278 Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 •i 0.1704 i 1.8234 � 1.1577 i 2.3800e- 0.4141 � 0.0817 i 0.4958 0.1788 i 0.0754 0.2542 0.0000 i 210.7651 210.7651 i 0.0600 0.0000 212.2658 003 0.00 2022 •i 0.5865 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 i 1,418.655 1,418.655 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 i i i i i 0 2023 •i 0.5190 i 3.2850 4.7678 i 0.0147 0.8497 0.0971 i 0.9468 0.2283 i 0.0912 0.3195 0.0000 i 1,342.440 1,342.440 i 0.1115 0.0000 1,345.228 9 i 9 i i 7 2024 •i 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.000Oe- 0.0221 6.3900e- 0.0285 5.8700e- 5.9700e- 0.0118 0.0000 i 44.6354 44.6354 7.8300e- 0.0000 44.8311 i i i i i 004 003 003 003 i i 003 � Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 1,418.655 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 11 0 0 1 Quarter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 5-31-2022 1.1499 1.1499 4 6-1-2022 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 1.1415 1.1415 6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0278 Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4091 1.4091 2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3329 1.3329 3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1499 1.1499 4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1457 1.1457 5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1415 1.1415 6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0278 1.0278 7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.9868 0.9868 8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.9831 0.9831 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.9798 0.9798 10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8757 2.8757 11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6188 1.6188 N20 CO2e Highest 2.8757 2.8757 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 i 10.3804 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 i i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 i 220.9670 i 0.0201 i 3.7400e- 222.5835 •� 003 . 003 i Energy •i 0.1398 i 1.2312 i 0.7770 7.6200e- i i 0.0966 i 0.0966 i i 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1 3,896.073 i 3,896.073 i 0.1303 i 0.0468 3,913.283 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i 3 ;� i i i i Mobile •1 1.5857 i 7.9962 i 19.1834 i 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 i 7.8559 i 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 1 7,620.498 7,620.498 i 0.3407 0.0000 1 7,629.016 '1 i i i i i i i i 1 6 i 6 i i 1 2 Waste •1 i i i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 i 0.0000 207.8079 i 12.2811 0.0000 1 514.8354 ----------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------------*- - - ---r------ ---------------j-------*------- Water •1 i i i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 � 29.1632 i 556.6420 � 585.8052 i 3.0183 � 0.0755 � 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 12,531.15 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 j j j j 07 19 j 51 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 10.3804 i 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 � i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 � 220.9670 i 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 003 003 i 0.00 Energy •i 0.1398 i 1.2312 0.7770 i 7.6200e- 0.0966 i 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 i 3,896.073 3,896.073 i 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Mobile •i 1.5857 i 7.9962 19.1834 i 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 i 7.8559 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 i 7,620.498 7,620.498 i 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 6 i 6 i i i 2 0.00 Waste •1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 i 0.0000 207.8079 i 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 0.00 Water •1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 29.1632 i 556.6420 585.8052 i 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 0.00 0.00 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 12,531.15 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 07 19 51 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 ;Demolition +Demolition 19/1/2021 110/12/2021 5: 30: +i 2 :Site Preparation +Site Preparation 110/13/2021 :11/9/2021 5: 20: +i 3 •Grading +Grading 111/10/2021 :1/11/2022 5: 45: +i 4 -Building Construction +Building Construction 11/12/2022 :12/12/2023 5: 500: +i 5 -Paving +Paving 112/13/2023 :1/30/2024 5: 35: +i 6 -Architectural Coating -Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5. 35, Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators 1 3 8.001 158• 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247• 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers 1 31 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 41 8.001 97• 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators 1 21 8.001 158• 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders 1 11 8.001 187• 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers 1 11 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading 'Scrapers ; 21 8.001 367• 0.48 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 21 8.001 97• 0.37 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 11 7.001 231, 0.29 �_ - - - --------------------------------------L Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 31 8.001 89• 0.20 + _ __i i _ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 11 8.001 _ 84• 0.74 _ �_ - - - - --------------------------------------L Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 31 7.001 97• 0.37 + __ i i Building Construction 'Welders 1 11 8.001 46• 0.45 ------------------------------------------ �- - - - - ----------- Paving +Pavers 1 21 8.001 130• 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment 1 21 8.001 132• 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers 1 21 8.001 80• 0.38 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------F------------ r ------------- ----------- Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 • 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase NameI Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00 0.001 458.00; 10.00: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix (HHDT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Site Preparation - - - - - - - - - - - - - �_ 7; ________ __'------ --, 18.00 1 - - 0.001 - - - - - - i 0.00: - - - - - - - - - ' - - 10.00: - - - - - - - - - - 6.90; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.00;LD_Mix --------------------- ;HDT_Mix ;HHDT �- --------------- ° Grading -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 10.00: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT ----------------A-------------- I- Construction v 9; i ----------i- 801.00 1 --------i 143.001 :Building 0.00: ---------' --------- 10.00: ------------------------�---------- 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix 1 -------- ;HHDT �- A----------- Paving 6; - i------------ 15.00: 1 --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: '---------� 10.00: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT 0.0729 7.5100e- 1 0.0291 f I Architectural Coating ; 1; 160.00, 0.00, 0.00, 10.00, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i , , , , 0.0496 , 0.0000 , 0.0496 , 7.5100e- , 0.0000 ; 7.5100e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 003 003 . 1 Off -Road •i 0.0475 , 0.4716 , 0.3235 , 5.8000e- , , 0.0233 , 0.0233 , , 0.0216 ; 0.0216 0.0000 i 51.0012 , 51.0012 , 0.0144 , 0.0000 i 51.3601 004 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 1.9300e- i 0.0634 i 0.0148 1.8000e- i 3.9400e- 1.9000e- 4.1300e- i 1.0800e- 1.8000e- 1.2600e- 0.0000 i 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- i 0.0000 i 17.4869 003 003 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Off -Road •i 0.0475 i 0.4716 i 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 i 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 i 0.0000 i 51.3600 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 7.2000e- 5.3000e- 6.0900e- 2.000Oe- 1.6800e- 1.000Oe- 1.6900e- 4.5000e- 1.000Oe- 4.6000e- 0.0000 i 1.5281 1.5281 5.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.5293 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 i � � 005 Total 2.6500e- 0.0639 0.0209 2.000Oe- 5.6200e- 2.000Oe- 5.8200e- 1.5300e- 1.9000e- 1.7200e- 0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e- 0.0000 19.0161 11 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 i 7.5100e- 0.0000 7.5100e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 003 Off -Road •i 0.0475 i 0.4716 i 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 i 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 i 0.0000 i 51.3600 004 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 004 003 1 j CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Hauling •I 1.9300e- I 0.0634 I 0.0148 11.8000e- 13.9400e- I 1.9000e- 14.1300e- I 1.0800e- 11.8000e- 1.2600e- 0.0000 I 17.4566 I 17.4566 11.2100e- I 0.0000 i 17.4869 �I I I I I I I I I I 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003003 I- I I I I I I I I I I I Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total I I I I I I I I I- I I I Worker •I 7.2000e- 1.6800e- 1.00OOe- 4.6000e- � 0.0000 I 1.5281 1.5281 0.0000 i 1.5293 15.3000e- 16.0900e- 12.00OOe- I I 11.6900e- 14.5000e- 11.00OOe- I 15.00OOe- I 'I 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 005 � 3.8000e- Total 2.6500e- 0.0639 0.0209 2.00OOe- 5.6200e- 2.00OOe- 5.8200e- 1.5300e- 1.9000e- 1.7200e- 0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e- 0.0000 19.0161 11 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.1807 I 0.0000 I 0.1807 I 0.0993 I 0.0000 0.0993 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I I I •I I I I I I I I I I I I I Off -Road •I 0.0389 I 0.4050 I 0.2115 13.8000e- I I 0.0204 I 0.0204 I I 0.0188 � 0.0188 � 0.0000 I 33.4357 I 33.4357 I 0.0108 I 0.0000 i 33.7061 004 I I I I 1 I I I I Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Hauling •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I I I •I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total Worker •I 5.8000e- 1.3400e- 1.000Oe- 3.7000e- 0.0000 I 1.2225 1.2225 0.0000 i 1.2234 14.3000e- 14.8700e- 11.000Oe- I I 11.3500e- 13.6000e- 11.000Oe- I 14.000Oe- I 'I 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 005 � 3.8000e- Total 5.8000e- 4.3000e- 4.8700e- 1.000Oe- 1.3400e- 1.000Oe- 1.3500e- 3.6000e- 1.000Oe- 3.7000e- 0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0007 0.0000 1.2234 11 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.1807 I 0.0000 I 0.1807 I 0.0993 I 0.0000 0.0993 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I I I •I I I I I I I I I I I I I Off -Road •I 0.0389 I 0.4050 I 0.2115 13.8000e- I I 0.0204 I 0.0204 I I 0.0188 � 0.0188 � 0.0000 I 33.4357 I 33.4357 I 0.0108 I 0.0000 i 33.7060 004 I I I I 1 I I I I Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.000033.7060 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 - ------------------------------------------'------------------ - - -- -- - -+-------------'--------------- ------- Worker •i 5.8000e- 4.3000e- 4.8700e- 1.00OOe- 1.3400e- 1.00OOe- 1.3500e- 3.6000e- 1.00OOe- 3.7000e- 0.0000 i 1.2225 1.2225 4.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.2234 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 0.5867 Total 5.8000e- 4.3000e- 4.8700e- 1.00OOe- 1.3400e- 1.00OOe- 1.3500e- 3.6000e- 1.00OOe- 3.7000e- 0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.000 0.0000 1.2234 003 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 i 0.0693 i 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0796 i 0.8816 i 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 i 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 i 0.0000 i 104.3776 003 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0796 i 0.8816 i 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 i 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 i 0.0000 i 104.3775 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total ------------------------------------------'------------------------ --+-------------'---------------------- Worker •i 1.2200e- 9.000Oe- 0.0103 3.000Oe- 2.8300e- 2.000Oe- 2.8600e- 7.5000e- 2.000Oe- 7.8000e- 0.0000 i 2.5808 2.5808 8.000Oe- 0.0000 i 2.5828 i i i i i 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 � � i Total 1.2200e- 9.000Oe- 0.0103 3.000Oe- 2.8300e- 2.000Oe- 2.8600e- 7.5000e- 2.000Oe- 7.8000e- 0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0007 0.0000 2.5828 11 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i i i i i 0.1741 i 0.0000 i 0.1741 i 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0796 i 0.8816 i 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 i 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 i 0.0000 i 104.3775 003 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 1.2200e- 9.000Oe- 0.0103 3.000Oe- 2.8300e- 2.000Oe- 2.8600e- 7.5000e- 2.000Oe- 7.8000e- 0.0000 i 2.5808 2.5808 8.000Oe- 0.0000 i 2.5828 i i i i i 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 i 005 � � i 0.0807 1.2200e- 9.000Oe- 0.0103 3.000Oe- 2.8300e- 2.000Oe- 2.8600e- 7.5000e- 2.000Oe- 7.8000e- 0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.000Oe- 0.0000 2.5828 7-t-I 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 0.0807 i 0.0000 i 0.0807 0.0180 i 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 0.0807 5.7200e- 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 19.2414 004 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0127 Worker •i 2.1000e- i 1.5000e- i 1.7400e- 1.000Oe- i 5.2000e- 0.0000 5.3000e- i 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4000e- 0.0000 i 0.4587 0.4587 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.4590 0.1017 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 i � � 005 0.0807 Total 2.1000e- 1.5000e- 1.7400e- 1.0000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 5.3000e- 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4000e- 0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.000Oe- 0.0000 0.4590 11 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 0.0807 i 0.0000 i 0.0807 0.0180 i 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 0.0807 5.7200e- 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 19.2414 004 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 Worker •i 2.1000e- i 1.5000e- i 1.7400e- 1.00OOe- i 5.2000e- 0.0000 5.3000e- i 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4000e- 0.0000 i 0.4587 0.4587 1.00OOe- i 0.0000 i 0.4590 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 i � � 005 0.1023 Total 2.1000e- 1.5000e- 1.7400e- 1.00OOe- 5.2000e- 0.0000 5.3000e- 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4000e- 0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.00OOe- 0.0000 0.4590 11 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.2158 i 1.9754 2.0700 i 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 i i 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 i 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 i 0.0000 i 294.8881 003 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 003 ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0527 i 1.6961 i 0.4580 4.5500e- i 0.1140 3.1800e- 0.1171 i 0.0329 3.0400e- 0.0359 0.0000 i 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 i 0.0000 i 442.6435 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.3051 i 0.2164 i 2.5233 7.3500e- i 0.7557 6.2300e- 0.7619 i 0.2007 5.7400e- 0.2065 0.0000 i 663.9936 663.9936 0.0187 i 0.0000 i 664.4604 003 003 003 i 2.0700 Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e- 0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-0.2424 0.0702 0.0000 1,105.977 1,105.977 0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103 003 003 003 1 1 9 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.2158 i 1.9754 i 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 i 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 i 0.0000 i 294.8877 003 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 003 i ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0527 i 1.6961 i 0.4580 4.5500e- i 0.1140 3.1800e- 0.1171 i 0.0329 3.0400e- 0.0359 0.0000 i 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 i 0.0000 i 442.6435 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.3051 i 0.2164 i 2.5233 7.3500e- i 0.7557 6.2300e- 0.7619 i 0.2007 5.7400e- 0.2065 0.0000 i 663.9936 663.9936 0.0187 i 0.0000 i 664.4604 003 003 003 i 2.0061 Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e- 0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-0.2424 0.0681 0.0000 1,105.977 1,105.977 0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103 003 003 003 1 1 9 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1942 i 1.7765 i 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 i 0.0000 i 287.9814 003 i Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 i Vendor •i 0.0382 i 1.2511 i 0.4011 4.3000e- i 0.1113 1.4600e- 0.1127 i 0.0321 1.4000e- 0.0335 0.0000 i 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 i 0.0000 i 418.5624 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.2795 i 0.1910 i 2.2635 6.9100e- i 0.7377 5.9100e- 0.7436 i 0.1960 5.4500e- 0.2014 0.0000 i 624.5363 624.5363 0.0164 i 0.0000 i 624.9466 003 003 003 i 2.0061 Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e- 0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e- 0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529 1,042.529 0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509 003 003 003 4 4 0 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1942 i 1.7765 i 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 i 0.0000 i 287.9811 003 i Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Vendor •i 0.0382 i 1.2511 i 0.4011 4.3000e- i 0.1113 1.4600e- 0.1127 i 0.0321 1.4000e- 0.0335 0.0000 i 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 i 0.0000 i 418.5624 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.2795 i 0.1910 i 2.2635 6.9100e- i 0.7377 5.9100e- 0.7436 i 0.1960 5.4500e- 0.2014 0.0000 i 624.5363 624.5363 0.0164 i 0.0000 i 624.9466 003 003 003 i 6.7100e- Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e- 0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e- 0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529 1,042.529 0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 4 4 0 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 i 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 i 13.1227 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 13.0175 _116721 0.000013.1227 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 1 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i ��------------------------ ---------------------'----------------------- -+ - -------------'--.--�-------T Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 2.8000e- 1.9000e- 2.2300e- 1.000Oe- 7.3000e- 1.000Oe- 7.3000e- 1.9000e- 1.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.6156 0.6156 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.6160 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 i � � 005 Total 2.8000e- 1.9000e- 2.2300e- 1.000Oe- 7.3000e- 1.000Oe- 7.3000e- 1.9000e- 1.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.6160 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 003 1 1 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 i 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 i 13.1227 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 13.0175 _116721 0.0000 13.1227 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 1 1 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Vendor•i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 2.8000e- 1.9000e- 2.2300e- 1.00OOe- 7.3000e- 1.00OOe- 7.3000e- 1.9000e- 1.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.6156 0.6156 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.6160 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 i � � 005 Total 2.8000e- 1.9000e- 2.2300e- 1.00OOe- 7.3000e- 1.00OOe- 7.3000e- 1.9000e- 1.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.6160 004 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0109 i 0.1048 0.1609 i 2.5000e- i i 5.1500e- i 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 i 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- i 0.0000 i 22.2073 •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.0000 22.2073 11 004 003 003 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 4.4000e- 2.9000e- 3.5100e- 1.000Oe- 1.2300e- 1.000Oe- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.000Oe- 3.4000e- 0.0000 i 1.0094 1.0094 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.0100 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 i � � 005 Total 4.4000e- 2.9000e- 3.5100e- 1.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.000Oe- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.000Oe- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.000 0.0000 1.0100 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 003 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 i 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.0000 i 22.2073 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.000022.2073 11 004 003 003 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 4.4000e- 2.9000e- 3.5100e- 1.00OOe- 1.2300e- 1.00OOe- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.00OOe- 3.4000e- 0.0000 i 1.0094 1.0094 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.0100 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 i � � 005 5.00OOe- Total 4.4000e- 2.9000e- 3.5100e- 1.00OOe- 1.2300e- 1.00OOe- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.00OOe-F74000e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.00OOe- 0.0000 1.0100 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •1 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 i i i 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.00OOe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 4.4745 005 003 003 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 i i i 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 7.4800e- 4.9300e- 0.0596 1.9000e- 0.0209 1.6000e- 0.0211 5.5500e- 1.5000e- 5.7000e- 0.0000 i 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 0.0000 i 17.1394 i i i i i 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i Total 7.4800e- 4.9300e- 0.0596 1.9000e- 0.0209 1.6000e- 0.0211 5.5500e- 1.5000e- 5.7000e- 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 0.0000 17.1394 11 003 003 003 004 003 004 003 004 003 004 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •1 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 i i i 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 4.4745 005 003 003 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 7.4800e- 4.9300e- 0.0596 1.9000e- 0.0209 1.6000e- 0.0211 5.5500e- 1.5000e- 5.7000e- 0.0000 i 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 0.0000 i 17.1394 i i i i i 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i Total 7.4800e- 4.9300e- 0.0596 1.9000e- 0.0209 1.6000e- 0.0211 5.5500e- 1.5000e- 5.7000e- 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 0.0000 17.1394 11 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 4.2 Trip Summary Information ROG I NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category tons/yr 506,227 506,227 ......................................------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; MT/yr ---------- ; 3,773.25 Mitigated •i 1.5857 i 7.9962 i 19.1834 i 0.0821 i 7.7979 i 0.0580 7.8559 i 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 i 7,620.498 � 7,620.498 � 0.3407 i 0.0000 i 7,629.016 ----------- --------------------------------------------------- 31.05 -- ---- - ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- ---- High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) .................................................. ; 6 i 6 i i i 2 2817.72 - - ------- --------------------------------------------------- 3,413,937 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 - 7,620.498 - 0.3407 - 0.0000 7,629.016 Quality Restaurant ......................................------------ + 501.12 511.92 ---------- 461.20 ---- - - - - -- - 707,488 ----------------------: 6 6 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 145.75 ; 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 ......................................------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 ---------- ; 3,773.25 ---------- -----------------------:------------------------ 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 ......................................----------- General Office Building ......................................--- ; 288.45 ----- ; 62.55 ------------ -r ----------- --------------------------------------------------- 31.05 -- ---- - ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- ---- High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) .................................................. ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 ---------- -r 2817.72 - - ------- --------------------------------------------------- 3,413,937 3,413,937 Ho.............� .. ---_ ----192.00 1--T-----------y--------------3----------- 160.00 445,703 Quality Restaurant ......................................------------ + 501.12 511.92 ---------- 461.20 ---- - - - - -- - 707,488 ----------------------: 707,488 ------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H -W or C -W I H -S or C -C I H -O or C -NW IH -W or C -W I H -S or C -C I H -O or C -NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 Y 40.20 : 1 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------__ 0.021166; __ __ ? _ T _ -------- ---- ------------- General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 ; 19 4 ....................... r----------- High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60 ---------- 8.40 ---------- 6.90 --------i'--------t----------- 8.50 1 72.50 ---------- 19.00 37 --------- ----------------- 20 43 .......:......r........�------------------ -- ... ? r--------------.... T.. -------- .r.. -------- ---- r... ------------- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 ; 58 ; 38 ; 4 .......................r---------- Quality Restaurant 16.60 ---------T---------. 8.40 6.90 --------i'--------t----------- 12.00 1 69.00 ---------- 19.00 38 --------- ----------------- 18 44 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.209971 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088} 0.044216; 0.209971 0.116369; 0.014033; 0.006332 0.021166; 0.033577 0.002613; 0.001817 0.005285; 0.0007121 0.000821 r Apartments Mid Rise 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 r General Office Building 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.209971 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712: 0.000821 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5430881 0.044216, 0.209971, 0.116369, 0.014033, 0.006332, 0.021166, 0.033577, 0.002613, 0.001817, 0.005285, 0.000712: 0.000821 Restaurant) ....................... f -------- --------- _ ..... _ . Hotel 0.543088 r 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------------_-------- --------------- Quality Restaurant 0.5430881 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088. 0.044216' 0.209971' 0.116369' 0.014033' 0.006332' 0.021166' 0.033577' 0.002613' 0.001817' 0.005285' 0.000712' 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity •1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 0.0000 1 I 1 0.0000 1 I I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I I 12,512.646 1 2,512.646 I 0.1037 I 1 0.0215 i 2,521.635 Mitigated 5 1 5 1 1 1 6 •1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 Electricity •1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I 0.0000 1 I 1 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 I 12,512.646 1 2,512.646 I 0.1037 I 1 0.0215 2,521.635 Unmitigated 5 1 5 1 I 1 6 •1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 NaturalGas 0.1398I 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265 I 0.0254 1 1,391.647 Miti 1 I 003 7 7 8gated I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 NaturalGas 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- - 0.0966 0.0966 - 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 • 1,383.426 • 0.0265 - 0.0254 • 1,391.647 Unmitigated 003 7 7 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 408494 •1 2.2000e- 1 0.0188 1 8.0100e- 1 1.2000e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1 1.5200e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1.5200e- � 0.0000 1 21.7988 1 21.7988 1 4.2000e- 1 4.000Oe- i 21.9284 Rise 1 '1 003 1 1 003 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 004 1 004 1 ; 1 1 r------�I------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � - 1 1 1 1 T Apartments Mid i 1.30613e .1 0.0704 1 0.6018 1 0.2561 1 3.8400e- 1 1 0.0487 1 0.0487 1 1 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 1 696.9989 1 696.9989 1 0.0134 1 0.0128 i 701.1408 Rise +007 ; 1 I I 003 _ 1 ; 1 r------71------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � - 1 1 1 1 T General Office Building i 468450 .1 2.5300e- 1 0.0230 1 0.0193 1 1.4000e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1 1.7500e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 0.0000 1 24.9983 1 24.9983 1 4.8000e- 1 4.6000e- i 25.1468 1 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 --- -- ---- --t--_---7-------- • 1 ---------------------1 '1----------------------------------------------------------�____--'-------- 1 1 -------- I I - I - I - I - I - I � I 1 - I - I T____'-_ High Turnover (Sit 8.30736e •1 0.0448 1 0.4072 1 0.3421 1 2.4400e- 1 1 0.0310 1 0.0310 1 1 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 1 443.3124 1 443.3124 1 8.5000e- 1 8.1300e- i 445.9468 Down Restaurant) 1 +006 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 ----------- Hotel ------ r71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �____--'I-------1 1 1 T____'-_ �'1------------------------------------------�-------�---------------� 1 �-------�-------�-------1 1.74095e 9.3900e- 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 1 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 1.7000e- 93.4557 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003003 1 003 1 003 1 __ " '-" "I Quality 1 j-------i-------i-------i-------i--------------- i------- i-----------------------1 �-------�-------�-------' r------71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ------- 1 1 T____'-_ 1 1.84608e •1 9.9500e- 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 1.8100e- 1 99.0993 Restaurant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 __t------71-------1 1 , I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 - 1 I I I T_____-_ Regional Shopping Centers i 91840 .1 5.000Oe- 1 4.5000e- 1 3.7800e- 1 3.000Oe- 1 1 3.4000e- 1 3.4000e- 1 1 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1 4.9009 1 4.9009 1 9.000Oe- 1 9.000Oe- i 4.9301 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . 1 1 005 1 005 1 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 003 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 408494 •1 2.2000e- 1 0.0188 1 8.0100e- 1 1.2000e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1 1.5200e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1.5200e- � 0.0000 1 21.7988 1 21.7988 1 4.2000e- 1 4.000Oe- i 21.9284 Rise 1 '1 0031 1 003 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 004 1 004 1 1 ; 1 r------�I------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , - 1 1 1 1 T Apartments Mid i 1.30613e .1 0.0704 1 0.6018 1 0.2561 1 3.8400e- 1 1 0.0487 1 0.0487 1 1 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 1 696.9989 1 696.9989 1 0.0134 1 0.0128 i 701.1408 Rise +007 ; 1 I I 003 _ 1 ; 1 r------71------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , - 1 1 1 1 T General Office Building i 468450 .1 2.5300e- 1 0.0230 1 0.0193 1 1.4000e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1 1.7500e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 0.0000 1 24.9983 1 24.9983 1 4.8000e- 1 4.6000e- i 25.1468 1 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 --- -- ---- --t--_---7-------- • 1 ---------------------1 '1----------------------------------------------------------�____--'-------- 1 1 -------- I I - I - I - I - I - I , I 1 - I - I T____'-_ High Turnover (Sit 8.30736e .1 0.0448 1 0.4072 1 0.3421 1 2.4400e- 1 1 0.0310 1 0.0310 1 1 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 1 443.3124 1 443.3124 1 8.5000e- 1 8.1300e- i 445.9468 Down Restaurant) 1 +006 i 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 ----------- Hotel ------ r71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , ------- 1 1 ------- �'1------------------------------------------�-------�-----------------------1 �-------�------- -------1 1.74095e •1 9.3900e- 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 1 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 1.7000e- 93.4557 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003. 1 1 003 1 003 1 -""'-""i Quality '1 j-------i-------i-------i-------i--------------- i------- i---------------��1 �-------�-------�-------1 r-------------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , ____--'I-------1 1 1 T_ ----- 71 1.84608e •1 9.9500e- 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 1.8100e- 99.0993 Restaurant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 __t------71-------1 1 , I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 - 1 I I I T_____-_ Regional Shopping Centers i 91840 •1 5.000Oe- 1 4.5000e- 1 3.7800e- 1 3.000Oe- 1 1 3.4000e- 1 3.4000e- 1 1 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1 4.9009 1 4.9009 1 9.000Oe- 1 9.000Oe- i 4.9301 ; 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . 1 1 005 1 005 1 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 003 8 8 j j 8 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low 106010 •i 33.7770 i 1.3900e- 2.9000e- 33.8978 Rise 003 004 i --�------it------ Apartments Mid •---------------- *------- 3.94697e •i 1,257.587 i 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 Rise +006 9 i i i 9 General Office -j--------j------- i 584550 •i 186.2502 i 7.6900e- 1.5900e- 186.9165 Building 003 003 High Turnover (Sit -j - - - - - --- - - - - - - 1.58904e •1 506.3022 i 0.0209 4.3200e- 508.1135 Down Restaurant) i +006 003 -- Hotel -----•--------------- -ii------- i 550308 •1 175.3399 i 7.2400e- 1.5000e- 175.9672 003 003 - Quality •�- - - - - --- - - - - -- - ---- - ii -- - - - - - 353120 •1 112.5116 i 4.6500e- 9.6000e- 112.9141 Restaurant ;1 i 003 i 004 Regional 756000 •i 240.8778 i 9.9400e- 2.0600e- T 241.7395 Shopping Center 003 i 003 Total 2,512.646 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 5 6 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low 106010 •i 33.7770 i 1.3900e- 2.9000e- 33.8978 Rise 003 004 i Apartments Mid • ---------------- 3.94697e •i 1,257.587 i 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 Rise +006 9 i i i 9 General Office -j--------j------- i 584550 •i 186.2502 i 7.6900e- 1.5900e- 186.9165 Building 003 003 High Turnover (Sit -j - - - - - --- - - - - - - 1.58904e •1 506.3022 i 0.0209 4.3200e- 508.1135 Down Restaurant) i +006 003 ---r------ii------- Hotel •--------------- *------- i 550308 •1 175.3399 i 7.2400e- 1.5000e- 175.9672 003 003 --- Quality •�- - - - - --- r------ii------- *------- 353120 •1 112.5116 i 4.6500e- 9.6000e- 112.9141 Restaurant ;1 003 i 004 Regional -------------- 756000 •i 240.8778 i 9.9400e- 2.0600e- 241.7395 Shopping Center 003 i 003 Total 2,512.646 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 5 6 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr PM10 PM10 MT/yr PM2.5 Mitigated •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 � 10.3804 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 i i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 � 220.9670 i 0.0201 � 3.7400e- 1 222.5835 •� 003 MT/yr Architectural •i 0.4137 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating . 003 i Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- - 0.0714 - 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 - 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 0.2950 003 1.6600e- 0.0714 0.0714 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.4137 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating -----------%---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------*------- Consumer �� 4.3998 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 0.0206 i 0.1763 0.0750 i 1.1200e- i 0.0143 i 0.0143 i 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 i 204.1166 204.1166 i 3.9100e- 3.7400e- i 205.3295 •� 003 003 003 i . Landscaping •i 0.3096 i 0.1187 10.3054 i 5.4000e- i 0.0572 i 0.0572 i 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 i 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 i 17.2540 i 004 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.4137 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 4.3998 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 0.0206 i 0.1763 0.0750 i 1.1200e- 0.0143 i 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 i 204.1166 204.1166 i 3.9100e- 3.7400e- 205.3295 003 003 003 i - 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 0.0572 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e0.0572 0.0000 i 16.8504 16.8504 i i i0.0572 i 004 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 11 003 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 C N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •1 585.8052 i 3.0183 i 0.0755 i 683.7567 - - - - - - - - - - - % --------------4--------------- ---------------- - - - - - - - Unmitigated •• 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low i 1.62885/ •1 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471 Rise i 1.02688 003 i•i ------- ------- 163.5252/ 11 Apartments Mid •i 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 Rise i 40.0485 i General Office 7.99802 / ■i 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- 11 61.6019 Building i 4.90201 ;i 003 i•i ------- ------- High Turnover (Sit 10.9272 / ■i 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 1 62.8482 Down Restaurant) i 0.697482 003 i ___r ------- .�____-__ T_______ Hotel 1.26834 / •i 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- 7.5079 i 0.140927 ;: 003 ----------- r------- .T�____-__ T_______ Quality 2.42827 / •i 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 13.9663 Restaurant i 0.154996 003 i ----------- ------- T_______ Regional 4.14806 / •i 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 31.9490 Shopping Center i 2.54236 003 Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low 1.62885/ •1 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471 Rise 1.02688 ;i i 003 ' -j--------I------- Apartments Mid 163.5252/ •1 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 Rise 40.0485 -- - - - --- - - - - - - General Office 17.99802/ •i 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- i 61.6019 Building 4.90201 ;i 003 --r- - - - - - ------- -j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit 10.9272/ •i 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 62.8482 Down Restaurant) i 0.697482 ;i i 003 ' -------- ------- Hotel i 1.26834/ •1 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- i 7.5079 0.140927 'i 003 -- - - - - --- - - - - - - Quality 2.42827 / •i 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 13.9663 Restaurant i 0.154996 ;i i 003 ---------- --------------- Regional 4.14806 / •i 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 31.9490 Shopping Center 2.54236 ;i i 003 Total 585.8052 j 3.0183 j 0.0755 683.7567 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual CategoryNear Total CO2 C N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •i 207.8079 i 12.2811 i 0.0000 1 514.8354 - - - - - - - - - - - % --------------+------------------------------ - - - - - - - Unmitigated •• 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low 11.5 •1 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Rise •� i • '-------'------- Apartments Mid i 448.5 •i 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 i 225.5513 Rise •� -------- i -------- ------- '------- GeneralOffice i 41.85 •1 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 i 21.0464 Building i •� - ------ �i------- '------- '------- *------- High Turnover (Sit 428.4 •1 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Down Restaurant)1 •� • '-------'------- Hotel i 27.38 •1 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 i 13.7694 __ i i Quality 7.3 •i 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Restaurant i •� • -------- ------- 58.8 •i 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Shopping Center i •� Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low 11.5 •1 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Rise •� i • '-------'------- Apartments Mid i 448.5 •i 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 i 225.5513 Rise •� -------- i -------- ------- '------- GeneralOffice i 41.85 •1 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 i 21.0464 Building i •� - ------ �i------- '------- '------- *------- High Turnover (Sit 428.4 •1 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Down Restaurant)1 •� '-------'------- Hotel i 27.38 •1 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 i 13.7694 __ i i Quality 7.3 •i 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Restaurant i •� • - ' - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - Regional 58.8 •i 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Shopping Center i •� Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 + 1000sgft ; 1.03 45,000.00 i 0 -- --------------------------_------------------------------_ h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 + High ----------------------- - - - - -- = - - ;------- - - - - --- - - - - -- 1000sgft 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0 ; -----------------------------_------------------------------_- Hotel 50.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = - ---;-------------- - - - - - - Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0 -- - - - - - - - --y----------------_------------------------------_- Qualit Restaurant 8.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = --- ----;-------------- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0 _ -- - - - - - -p--------------------_------------------------------ A artments Low Rise 25.00 + ----------------------------- = --- ----;------------- - - - - - - Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72 -- - - - - - - ---------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------= Apartments artments Mid Rise 975.00 + ----- -------- --------- -i------------------+--------------- Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789 ------------------------------_------------------------------_ ----------------------- - - - - -- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood -burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction -related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Trips and VMT - Local hire provision Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces -----r------------------------------ FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- NumberWood 1.25 0.00 -------------p-------------_------------------- tblFire laces ------------ ------------------------- Numbeood r 48.75 0.00 rW ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------r----------------------------- -------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tbITripsAndVMT ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tbITripsAndVMT ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST TR r 7.16 6.17 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST TR 6.39 3.87 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST TR r 2.46 1.39 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- ST TR 158.37 79.82 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer tblVehicleTrips ST -TR 8.19 3.75 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips Y ---------------------------- ST TR ---------------------------------T-------------------------- } 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST TR } 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 131.84 78.27 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass r 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year Ib/day Ib/day 2021 •i 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 i 6,163.416 6,163.416 1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103 i i � i i i 3 4.441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.825 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0 12,493.44 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.572022 ,4944 03 03 07 2023 •i 4.1534 i 25.7658 38.7457 i 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 i 7.7679 1.8799 i 0.7136 2.5935 0.0000 i 12,150.48 12,150.48 i 0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46 90 90 15 2024 •1 237.0219 i 9.5478 14.9642 i 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 i 1.2875 0.3229 i 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 i 2,313.180 2,313.180 i 0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095 8 i 8 i i i 6 Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44 12,493.44 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 11 03 03 07 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year Ib/day Ib/day 2021 •i 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 i 6,163.416 6,163.416 1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103 i i � i i i 3 4.441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.825 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0 12,493.44 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.572022 ,4944 03 03 07 0.00 2023 •i 4.1534 i 25.7658 38.7457 i 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 i 7.7679 1.8799 i 0.7136 2.5935 0.0000 i 12,150.48 12,150.48 i 0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46 90 90 15 2024 •1 237.0219 i 9.5478 14.9642 i 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 i 1.2875 0.3229 i 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 i 2,313.180 2,313.180 i 0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095 8 i 8 i i i 5 0.00 Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44 12,493.44 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 03 03 07 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Area •i 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 i i � � i � i i 50 50 i 92 --------------- Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 i 2 i i i 7 Mobile •1 9.8489 i 45.4304 114.8495 i 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 i 46.2951 12.2950 i 0.3119 12.6070 i 50,306.60 50,306.60 i 2.1807 50,361.12 08 34 i 34 � � i Total 41.1168 Total 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 76,811.18 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 11 77,025.87 762 16 16 16 16 86 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Area •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 88.4430 i 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 i 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 �� 50 50 i 92 ■ Eegy 0.5292 0.52928,355.983 , , 405.638 '� i i i i i i i i ■ 2 i 2 i i i 7 Mobile 9.8489 i 45.4304 114.8495 i 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 i 46.2951 12.2950 i 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 50,306.60 i 2.1807 i 50,361.12 i 34 34 i 08 ■ Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 76,811.18 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 16 16 86 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e !10/13/2021 111/9/2021 1 51 20: A PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 45: A i _ 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction !1/12/2022 Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3/19/2024 5, 35 - 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Demolition !Demolition !9/1/2021 110/12/2021 51 30: A i _ 2 Site Preparation +Site Preparation !10/13/2021 111/9/2021 1 51 20: A i _ 3 •Grading +Grading !11/10/2021 11/11/2022 1 51 45: A i _ 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction !1/12/2022 112/12/2023 1 51 500: A i _ 5 :Paving +Paving !12/13/2023 11/30/2024 1 51 35: + I 1 1 6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5, 35 - Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators 1 3 8.001 158• 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247• 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers 1 31 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 41 8.001 97• 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators 1 21 8.001 158• 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders 1 11 8.001 187• 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers 1 11 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading 'Scrapers ; 21 8.001 367• 0.48 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 21 8.001 97• 0.37 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 11 7.001 231, 0.29 �_ - - - --------------------------------------L Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 31 8.001 89• 0.20 + _ __i i _ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 11 8.001 _ 84• 0.74 _ �_ - - - - --------------------------------------L Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 31 7.001 97• 0.37 + __ i i Building Construction 'Welders 1 11 8.001 46• 0.45 ------------------------------------------ �- - - - - ----------- Paving +Pavers 1 21 8.001 130• 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment 1 21 8.001 132• 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers 1 21 8.001 80• 0.38 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------F------------ r ------------- ----------- Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 • 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Phase NameI Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00 0.001 458.00; 10.00: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix IHDT_Mix EHHDT - - - - - - - - - - - - - Site Preparation 7; -----_ -_, 18.00: - - 0.001 - - - - - - i 0.00: - - - - - - - - - - - 10.00: - - - - - - - - - - 6.90; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.00;LD_Mix --------------------- ;HDT_Mix ?HHDT �- --------------- ° Grading -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 10.00: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT I- ----------------A-------------- Construction v 9; i ----------i- 801.00 1 --------i 143.001 :Building 0.00: ---------' --------- 10.00: ------------------------�---------- 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix 1 -------- ;HHDT �- A----------- Paving 6; - i------------ 15.00: 1 --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: '---------� 10.00: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT 1.5513 4.8588 1 1.4411 f I Architectural Coating ; 1; 160.00, 0.00, 0.00, 10.00, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust ;1 , , , , 3.3074 , 0.0000 , 3.3074 , 0.5008 , 0.0000 ; 0.5008 � i , 0.0000 , , i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 , 31.4407 , 21.5650 , 0.0388 , , 1.5513 , 1.5513 , , 1.4411 ; 1.4411 :-3-,747.944 , 3,747.944 , 1.0549 , i 3,774.317 9 1 9 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 1,292.241 0.0877 i 1,294.433 i i � i i � � i '� i i i i i i i i • 3 i 3 i i i 7 Off -Road •i 3.1651 i 31.4407 i 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 i 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 i i 3,774.317 '� Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0487 i 0.0313 i 0.4282 1.1800e- i 0.1141 9.5000e- 0.1151 i 0.0303 8.8000e- 0.0311 117.2799 117.2799 3.5200e- i i 117.3678 003 004 004 003 i 21.5650 Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521 0.0912 1,411.801 9 9 2 17,409.5211 2 1 5 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 i 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 i 31.4407 i 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 i 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 i i 3,774.317 '� i i i i i i i i • 9 i 9 i i i 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 i 1,292.241 1,292.241 0.0877 i 1,294.433 i i � i i • � � i '� i i i i i i i i • 3 i 3 i i i 7 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 � 0.0380 i � 2.0445 � 2.0445 i � 1.8809 � 1.8809 � i 3,685.656 � 3,685.656 � 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 '� i i i i i i i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0487 i 0.0313 i 0.4282 1.1800e- i 0.1141 9.5000e- 0.1151 i 0.0303 8.8000e- 0.0311 117.2799 117.2799 3.5200e- i i 117.3678 003 004 004 003 i 21.1543 Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521 0.0912 1,411.801 9 9 2 17,409.5211 2 1 5 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 � 0.0380 i � 2.0445 � 2.0445 i � 1.8809 � 1.8809 � i 3,685.656 � 3,685.656 � 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 '� i i i i i i i i • gi 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0584 i 0.0375 i 0.5139 1.4100e- i 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 i 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- i i 140.8414 003 003 003 003 i 21.1543 Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- 140.8414 003 003 9 003 3 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 i 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 gi 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 � 0.0620 i � 1.9853 � 1.9853 i � 1.8265 � 1.8265 � i 6,007.043 � 6,007.043 � 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0584 i 0.0375 i 0.5139 1.4100e- i 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 i 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 i 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- i i 140.8414 003 003 003 003 i 30.8785 Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- 140.8414 003 003 4 003 4 003 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 � 0.0620 i � 1.9853 � 1.9853 i � 1.8265 � 1.8265 � i 6,007.043 � 6,007.043 � 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 777 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 '� i i i i i i i i i i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker•i 0.0649 i 0.0417 i 0.5710 1.5700e- i 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 1 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- i i 156.4904 003 003 003 003 i 30.8785 Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e- 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- 156.4904 003 003 4 003 4 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •i 8.6733 0.0000 i 8.6733 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 5 5 i 8 Worker •i 0.0649 i 0.0417 i 0.5710 1.5700e- i 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- i i 156.4904 003 003 003 003 i 38.8435 Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e- 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 1.9442 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- 156.4904 003 003 003 5 8 003 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 � 0.0621 i � 1.6349 � 1.6349 i � 1.5041 1.5041 � i 6,011.410 � 6,011.410 � 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 i i i 5 5 i 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 i 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0607 i 0.0376 i 0.5263 1.5100e- i 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- i i 150.9813 003 003 003 003 i 29.0415 Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e- 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- 150.9813 003 003 5 003 8 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 i 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 5 i 5 i 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Total Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 15.6156 16.3634 Worker •i 0.0607 i 0.0376 i 0.5263 1.5100e- i 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- i i 150.9813 003 003 003 003 i 0.8090 Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e- 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- 150.9813 003 6 003 003 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i 2,569.632 i i i i i 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 6 i 6 i i i 2 Vendor •i 0.4079 i 13.2032 i 3.4341 0.0364 i 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 i 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 i 3,896.548 3,896.548 0.2236 i i 3,902.138 2 i 2 i i i 4 15.6156 Worker •i 2.4299 i 1.5074 i 21.0801 0.0607 i 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 i 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 i 6,042.558 6,042.558 0.1697 i i 6,046.800 5 i 5 i i 1 0 Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106 9,939.106 0.3933 9,948.938 6 6 2 7 7 4 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 i 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i i i i i i 9 9 i 1 Vendor •i 0.4079 i 13.2032 i 3.4341 0.0364 i 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 i 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 i 3,896.548 3,896.548 0.2236 i i 3,902.138 2 i 2 i i i 4 14.3849 Worker •i 2.4299 i 1.5074 i 21.0801 0.0607 i 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 i 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 i 6,042.558 6,042.558 0.1697 i i 6,046.800 5 i 5 i i 1 0 Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106 9,939.106 0.3933 j 9,948.938 j j j 9 9 1 7 7 4 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 � i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 i i i i i i i i 9 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.658T 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 j j j j j j 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 i 9 i 1 Total Vendor •i 0.3027 i 10.0181 i 3.1014 0.0352 i 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 i 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 i 3,773.876 3,773.876 0.1982 i i 3,778.830 2 i 2 i i i 0 16.2440 Worker •i 2.2780 i 1.3628 i 19.4002 0.0584 i 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 i 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 i 5,821.402 5,821.402 0.1529 5,825.225 8 i 8 i i i 4 0.6997 Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279 9,595.279 0.3511 9,604.055 9 9 1 0 0 4 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 9 i 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 11 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 1 i 1 i i i 6 Vendor •i 0.3027 i 10.0181 i 3.1014 0.0352 i 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 i 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 i 3,773.876 3,773.876 0.1982 i i 3,778.830 2 i 2 i i 1 0 Total Worker •i 2.2780 i 1.3628 i 19.4002 0.0584 i 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 i 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 i 5,821.402 5,821.402 0.1529 i i 5,825.225 8 i 8 i i i 4 14.5842 Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279 9,595.279 0.3511 9,604.055 1 1 0 0 4 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 i 10.1917 i 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i i 2,225.433 1 i 1 i i i 6 Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0427 i 0.0255 i 0.3633 1.0900e- i 0.1141 9.000Oe- 0.1150 i 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- i i 109.0866 003 004 004 003 i 10.1917 Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e- 0.1141 9.000Oe- 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 0.7140 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- 109.0866 003 004 004 1 6 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 i 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i 2,225.433 i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 11 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0427 i 0.0255 i 0.3633 1.0900e- i 0.1141 9.00OOe- 0.1150 i 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- i i 109.0866 003 004 004 003 i 14.6258 Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e- 0.1141 9.00OOe- 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- 109.0866 003 004 2 004 3 003 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 i 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0403 i 0.0233 i 0.3384 1.0600e- i 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 i 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- i i 105.6992 003 004 004 003 i 9.5246 Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 0.7140 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- 105.6992 003 004 004 2 3 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 i 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i 2,225.396 i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 11 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 i 2.9700e- i i 0.0609 i 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 i 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0403 i 0.0233 i 0.3384 1.0600e- i 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 i 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- i i 105.6992 003 004 004 003 i 1.8101 Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- 105.6992 003 003 004 004 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Archit. Coating •i 236.4115 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 i 2.9700e- i i 0.0609 i 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 i 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.4296 i 0.2481 i 3.6098 0.0113 i 1.2171 � 9.4300e- 1.2266 i 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,126.758 1,126.758 0.0280 i i 1,127.458 003 003 3 3 i 3 1.2188 1.8101 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e- 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 0.0159 1,126.758 1,126.758 0.0280 1,127.458 =.t.l 003 003 003 3 3 3 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Archit. Coating •1 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.4296 i 0.2481 i 3.6098 0.0113 i 1.2171 � 9.4300e- 1.2266 i 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,126.758 1,126.758 0.0280 i i 1,127.458 003 003 3 3 i 3 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e- 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,126.758 1,126.758 0.0280 1,127.458 =.t.' 003 003 3 3 3 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 4.2 Trip Summary Information ROG I NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category 154.00 Ib/day 506,227 ......................................------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 Ib/day ---------- -----------------------:------------------------ 4075.50 Mitigated •i 9.8489 i 45.4304 114.8495 i 0.4917 i 45.9592 i 0.3360 46.2951 i 12.2950 � 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 50,306.60 2.1807 i i 50,361.12 •� High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) .................................................. ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 ---------- -r 2817.72 - - ------- --------------------------------------------------- . 34 34 i 08 Ho.............� .. ---_ Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 - 50,306.60 - 2.1807 - 50,361.12 461.20 ---- - - - - -- - 707,488 ----------------------: 707,488 ------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 34 34 08 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 145.75 ; 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 ......................................------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 ---------- ; 3,773.25 ---------- -----------------------:------------------------ 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 ......................................----------- General Office Building ......................................--- ; 288.45 ----- ; 62.55 ------------ -r ----------- --------------------------------------------------- 31.05 -- ---- - ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- ---- High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) .................................................. ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 ---------- -r 2817.72 - - ------- --------------------------------------------------- 3,413,937 3,413,937 Ho.............� .. ---_ ----192.00 1--T-----------y--------------3----------- 160.00 445,703 Quality Restaurant ......................................------------ + 501.12 511.92 ---------- 461.20 ---- - - - - -- - 707,488 ----------------------: 707,488 ------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H -W or C -W I H -S or C -C I H -O or C -NW IH -W or C -W I H -S or C -C I H -O or C -NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 Y 40.20 : 1 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------__ 0.021166; __ __ ? _ T _ -------- ---- ------------- General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 ; 19 4 ....................... r----------- High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60 ---------- 8.40 ---------- 6.90 --------i'--------t----------- 8.50 1 72.50 ---------- 19.00 37 --------- ----------------- 20 43 .......:......r........�------------------ -- ... ? r--------------.... T.. -------- .r.. -------- ---- r... ------------- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 ; 58 ; 38 ; 4 .......................r---------- Quality Restaurant 16.60 ---------T---------. 8.40 6.90 --------i'--------t----------- 12.00 1 69.00 ---------- 19.00 38 --------- ----------------- 18 44 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.209971 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088} 0.044216; 0.209971 0.116369; 0.014033; 0.006332 0.021166; 0.033577 0.002613; 0.001817 0.005285; 0.0007121 0.000821 r Apartments Mid Rise 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 r General Office Building 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.209971 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712: 0.000821 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5430881 0.044216, 0.209971, 0.116369, 0.014033, 0.006332, 0.021166, 0.033577, 0.002613, 0.001817, 0.005285, 0.000712: 0.000821 Restaurant) ....................... f -------- --------- _ ..... _ . Hotel 0.543088 r 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------------_-------- --------------- Quality Restaurant 0.5430881 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088. 0.044216' 0.209971' 0.116369' 0.014033' 0.006332' 0.021166' 0.033577' 0.002613' 0.001817' 0.005285' 0.000712' 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer ROG I NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day NaturalGas •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 i 4.2573 0.0418 i i 0.5292 0.5292 i i 0.5292 0.5292 + i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 i 0.1532 1 8,405.638 Mitigated ;i . i 2 2 i 7 NaturalGas 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 • 8,355.983 • 0.1602 0.1532 • 8,405.638 Unmitigated 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr Ib/day Ib/day Apartments Low i 1119.16 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1 ----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�-------------- r------71-------1 -+------'I T' ------ Apartments Mid 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 1 35784.3 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1------------------------------------------�-------�-----------------------1------- --------------------- r------ � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1283.42 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 � 1 ------- ------- -------1 '1 ------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- ------7------- r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22759.9 •1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r-------1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4769.72 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 11 1 1 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -t------71------_1 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I � �-------I-------1 I I T'------ Quality 1 5057.75 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 __x------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � v 1 1 1 1 T""--- 251.616 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr Ib/day Ib/day Apartments Low i 1.11916 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1 ----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�-------------- r------71-------1 -�------'I T' ------ Apartments Mid 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 1 i 35.7843 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1 1 ------- ----------------------------- -------�-------�-----------------------1------- --------------------- r------71_----__ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1.28342 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 � 1 ------- ------- -------1 '1 ------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- ------7------- r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22.7599 .1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r------�1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4.76972 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 1 1 I I 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -r------71-------1 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �-------I-------1 1 1 T'------ Quality 5.05775 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 --t------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 T""--- 0.251616 •1 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 077 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG N7CO CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio -0O2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day PM10 Ib/day Total Mitigated •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 � 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 i i 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 Subcategory Ib/day Ib/day 50 50 92 -------------i i Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 • 18,148.59 - 0.4874 • 0.3300 • 18,259.11 Landscaping •i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 i 152.1542 003 i i i i i i i i i • Total 30.5020 50 50 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory Ib/day Ib/day Architectural •i 2.2670 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating•' ' i i- -----------%---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- -------*------- Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products •' ' i . Hearth •i 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 18,000.00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 i i i i i i i 00 00 50 Landscaping •i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 i 152.1542 003 i i i i i i i i i • Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 50 50 92 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory Ib/day Ib/day Architectural •i 2.2670 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 1.6500 i 14.1000 6.0000 i 0.0900 1.1400 i 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 i 18,000.00 18,000.00 i 0.3450 1 0.3300 1 18,106.96 00 00 50 ---- -- - - - ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --- - -- ------------------------------ Landscaping i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 152.1542 003 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 j j F-777000 50 50 j 92 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Fire Pumos and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 + 1000sgft ; 1.03 45,000.00 i 0 -- --------------------------_------------------------------_ h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 + High ----------------------- - - - - -- = - - ;------- - - - - --- - - - - -- 1000sgft 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0 ; -----------------------------_------------------------------_- Hotel 50.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = - ---;-------------- - - - - - - Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0 -- - - - - - - - --y----------------_------------------------------_- Qualit Restaurant 8.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = --- ----;-------------- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0 _ -- - - - - - -p--------------------_------------------------------ A artments Low Rise 25.00 + ----------------------------- = --- ----;------------- - - - - - - Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72 -- - - - - - - ---------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------= Apartments artments Mid Rise 975.00 + ----- -------- --------- -i------------------+--------------- Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789 ------------------------------_------------------------------_ ----------------------- - - - - -- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood -burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction -related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Trips and VMT - Local hire provision Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces -----r------------------------------ FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- NumberWood 1.25 0.00 -------------p-------------_------------------- tblFire laces ------------ ------------------------- Numbeood r 48.75 0.00 rW ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------r----------------------------- -------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tbITripsAndVMT ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tbITripsAndVMT ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST TR r 7.16 6.17 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST TR 6.39 3.87 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST TR r 2.46 1.39 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- ST TR 158.37 79.82 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter tblVehicleTrips ST -TR 8.19 3.75 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips Y ---------------------------- ST TR �-----------------------------T-------------------------- } 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST TR } 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 131.84 78.27 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU TR } 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD TR } 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass r 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Year Ib/day Ib/day 2021 •i 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 i 6,154.337 6,154.337 1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018 i i � i i i � 7 i 7 i i i 6 ------------- 2022 •i 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 i 12,035.34 12,035.34 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 i � i � � i � i � � i 40 40 i 13 2023 •i 4.3939 i 25.8648 37.5031 i 0.1162 � 7.0088 0.7598 i 7.7685 1.8799 i 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 i 11,710.40 11,710.40 i 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44 80 80 97 2024 •i 237.0656 i 9.5503 14.9372 i 0.0238 1.2171 � 0.4694 i 1.2875 0.3229 i 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 i 2,307.051 2,307.051 i 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962 7 i 7 i i i 7 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 12,035.34 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 11 40 40 13 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Year Ib/day Ib/day 2021 •i 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 i 6,154.337 6,154.337 1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018 i i � i i i � 7 i 7 i i i 6 ------------- 2022 •i 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 i 12,035.34 12,035.34 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 i � i � � i � i � � i 40 40 i 13 2023 •i 4.3939 i 25.8648 37.5031 i 0.1162 � 7.0088 0.7598 i 7.7685 1.8799 i 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 i 11,710.40 11,710.40 i 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44 80 80 97 2024 •i 237.0656 i 9.5503 14.9372 i 0.0238 1.2171 � 0.4694 i 1.2875 0.3229 i 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 i 2,307.051 2,307.051 i 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962 7 i 7 i i i 7 0.00 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 12,035.34 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 11 40 40 13 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Area •i 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 i i � � i � i i 50 50 i 92 Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 i 2 i i i 7 Mobile •i 9.5233 i 45.9914 � 110.0422 i 0.4681 � 45.9592 � 0.3373 i 46.2965 � 12.2950 i 0.3132 12.6083 i 47,917.80 � 47,917.80 i 2.1953 � � 47,972.68 '� 05 05 i 39 Mobile 9.5233 i 45.9914 110.0422 i 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 i 46.2965 12.2950 i 0.3132 12.6083 � 47,917.80 47,917.80 i 2.1953 47,972.68 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 74,422.37 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 0.4832 74,637.44 87 87 87 87 17 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Area •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 88.4430 i 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 i 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 �� 50 50 i 92 ■ Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 i 8,405.638 '� i i i i i i i i ■ 2 i 2 i i i 7 Mobile 9.5233 i 45.9914 110.0422 i 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 i 46.2965 12.2950 i 0.3132 12.6083 � 47,917.80 47,917.80 i 2.1953 47,972.68 i 05 05 i 39 ■ Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 74,422.37 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 87 87 17 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e !10/13/2021 111/9/2021 1 51 20: A PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 45: A i _ 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction !1/12/2022 Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3/19/2024 5, 35 - 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Demolition !Demolition !9/1/2021 110/12/2021 51 30: A i _ 2 Site Preparation +Site Preparation !10/13/2021 111/9/2021 1 51 20: A i _ 3 •Grading +Grading !11/10/2021 11/11/2022 1 51 45: A i _ 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction !1/12/2022 112/12/2023 1 51 500: A i _ 5 :Paving +Paving !12/13/2023 11/30/2024 1 51 35: + I 1 1 6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5, 35 - Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators 1 3 8.001 158• 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247• 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers 1 31 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 41 8.001 97• 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators 1 21 8.001 158• 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders 1 11 8.001 187• 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers 1 11 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading 'Scrapers ; 21 8.001 367• 0.48 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 21 8.001 97• 0.37 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 11 7.001 231, 0.29 �_ - - - --------------------------------------L Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 31 8.001 89• 0.20 + _ __i i _ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 11 8.001 _ 84• 0.74 _ �_ - - - - --------------------------------------L Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 31 7.001 97• 0.37 + __ i i Building Construction 'Welders 1 11 8.001 46• 0.45 ------------------------------------------ �- - - - - ----------- Paving +Pavers 1 21 8.001 130• 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment 1 21 8.001 132• 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers 1 21 8.001 80• 0.38 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------F------------ r ------------- ----------- Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 • 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Phase NameI Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00 0.001 458.00; 10.00: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix (HHDT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Site Preparation - - - - - - - - - - - - - �_ 7; ________ __'------ --, 18.00 1 - - 0.001 - - - - - - i 0.00: - - - - - - - - - ' - - 10.00: - - - - - - - - - - 6.90; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.00;LD_Mix --------------------- ;HDT_Mix ;HHDT �- --------------- ° Grading -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 10.00: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT ----------------A-------------- I- Construction v 9; i ----------i- 801.00 1 --------i 143.001 :Building 0.00: ---------' --------- 10.00: ------------------------�---------- 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix 1 -------- ;HHDT �- A----------- Paving 6; - i------------ 15.00: 1 --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: '---------� 10.00: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT 1.5513 4.8588 1 1.4411 f I Architectural Coating ; 1; 160.00, 0.00, 0.00, 10.00, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust ;1 , , , , 3.3074 , 0.0000 , 3.3074 , 0.5008 , 0.0000 ; 0.5008 � i , 0.0000 , , i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 , 31.4407 , 21.5650 , 0.0388 , , 1.5513 , 1.5513 , , 1.4411 ; 1.4411 i 3,747.944 , 3,747.944 , 1.0549 , i 3,774.317 9 1 9 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 1,269.855 0.0908 i 1,272.125 i i � i � i i '� i i i i i i i i • 5 i 5 i i i 2 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • 9 9 i 4 Worker•i 0.0532 i 0.0346 i 0.3963 1.1100e- i 0.1141 9.5000e- 0.1151 i 0.0303 8.8000e- 0.0311 i 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e- i 1 110.5539 003 004 004 003 i 31.4407 Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1.0549 1,380.326 1,380.326 0.0941 1,382.679 9 9 2 2 1 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 i 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 i 31.4407 i 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 i 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 i i 3,774.317 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 9 9 i 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 i 1,269.855 1,269.855 0.0908 i 1,272.125 i i � i � i • i '� i i i i i i i i • 5 i 5 i i i 2 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • gi 9 3 Worker•i 0.0532 i 0.0346 i 0.3963 1.1100e- i 0.1141 9.5000e- 0.1151 i 0.0303 8.8000e- 0.0311 i 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e- i 1 110.5539 003 004 004 003 i 40.4971 Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1.1920 1,380.326 3,715.457 0.0941 1,382.679 9 9 2 17,380.326 2 1 1 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 � 0.0380 i � 2.0445 � 2.0445 i � 1.8809 � 1.8809 � i 3,685.656 � 3,685.656 � 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 '� i i i i i i i i • gi 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0638 i 0.0415 i 0.4755 1.3300e- i 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 i 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- i i 132.6646 003 003 003 003 i 21.1543 Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- 132.6646 003 003 9 003 3 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 i 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 gi 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 � 0.0620 i � 1.9853 � 1.9853 i � 1.8265 � 1.8265 � i 6,007.043 � 6,007.043 � 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0638 i 0.0415 i 0.4755 1.3300e- i 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 i 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- i i 132.6646 003 003 003 003 i 30.8785 Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- 132.6646 003 003 4 003 4 003 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 � 0.0620 i � 1.9853 � 1.9853 i � 1.8265 � 1.8265 � i 6,007.043 � 6,007.043 � 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 777 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0709 i 0.0462 i 0.5284 1.4800e- i 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- i i 147.4051 003 003 003 003 i 30.8785 Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e- 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- 147.4051 003 003 4 003 4 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 4 i 4 i i i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 � 0.0621 i � 1.6349 � 1.6349 i � 1.5041 1.5041 � i 6,011.410 � 6,011.410 � 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 i i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0709 i 0.0462 i 0.5284 1.4800e- i 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- i i 147.4051 003 003 003 003 i 29.0415 Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e- 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- 147.4051 003 003 5 003 8 003 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 � 0.0621 i � 1.6349 � 1.6349 i � 1.5041 1.5041 � i 6,011.410 � 6,011.410 � 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 i i i 5 5 i 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 i 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0665 i 0.0416 i 0.4861 1.4300e- i 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.000Oe- i i 142.2207 003 003 003 003 i 29.0415 Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e- 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.000Oe- 142.2207 003 003 5 003 8 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 i 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 5 i 5 i i i 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Total Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 15.6156 16.3634 Worker •i 0.0665 i 0.0416 i 0.4861 1.4300e- i 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.00OOe- i i 142.2207 003 003 003 003 i 0.8090 Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e- 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.00OOe- 142.2207 003 6 003 003 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i 2,569.632 i i i i i 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.4284 i 13.1673 i 3.8005 � 0.0354 i 0.9155 � 0.0256 0.9412 i 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 3,789.075 0.2381 i i 3,795.028 0 i 0 i i i 3 15.6156 Worker •i 2.6620 i 1.6677 i 19.4699 0.0571 i 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 i 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 :-5-,691.935 5,691.935 0.1602 i i 5,695.940 4 i 4 i i i 8 Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010 9,481.010 0.3984 9,490.969 6 6 2 4 4 1 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 i 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.4284 i 13.1673 i 3.8005 � 0.0354 i 0.9155 � 0.0256 0.9412 i 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 3,789.075 0.2381 i i 3,795.028 0 i 0 i i i 3 14.3849 Worker •i 2.6620 i 1.6677 i 19.4699 0.0571 i 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 i 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 :-5-,691.935 5,691.935 0.1602 i i 5,695.940 4 i 4 i i i 8 Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010 9,481.010 0.3984 j 9,490.969 j j j 9 9 1 4 4 1 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 � i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 i i i i i i i i 9 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.658T 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 j j j j j j 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 i 9 i 1 Total Vendor •i 0.3183 i 9.9726 i 3.3771 0.0343 i 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 i 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 i 3,671.400 3,671.400 0.2096 i i 3,676.641 7 i 7 i i i 7 16.2440 Worker •i 2.5029 i 1.5073 i 17.8820 0.0550 i 6.0932 0.0479 � 6.1411 i 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797 5,483.797 0.1442 i i 5,487.402 4 i 4 i i i 0 0.6997 Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 777 9,155.198 9,155.198 0.3538 9,164.043 9 9 1 1 1 7 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 9 i 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 11 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 Vendor •i 0.3183 i 9.9726 i 3.3771 0.0343 i 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 i 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 i 3,671.400 3,671.400 0.2096 i i 3,676.641 7 i 7 i i i 7 Total Worker •i 2.5029 i 1.5073 i 17.8820 0.0550 i 6.0932 0.0479 � 6.1411 i 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797 5,483.797 0.1442 i i 5,487.402 4 i 4 i i i 0 14.5842 Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 777 9,155.198 9,155.198 0.3538 9,164.043 1 1 1 1 7 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i 2,225.433 i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - F-0-0-000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0469 i 0.0282 i 0.3349 1.0300e- i 0.1141 9.000Oe- 0.1150 i 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- i i 102.7603 003 004 004 003 i 10.1917 Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e- 0.1141 9.000Oe- 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 0.7140 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- 102.7603 003 004 004 1 6 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 i 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i 2,225.433 i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0469 i 0.0282 i 0.3349 1.0300e- i 0.1141 9.00OOe- 0.1150 i 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- i i 102.7603 003 004 004 003 i 14.6258 Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e- 0.1141 9.00OOe- 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- 102.7603 003 004 2 004 3 003 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 i 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 i i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 11 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.000Oe- 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- i 99.5663 i i i i i 003 004 004 003 i 9.5246 14.6258 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.000Oe- 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 0.7140 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- 99.5663 =.I., 003 004 004 2 3 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 i 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i 2,225.396 i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 11 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 i 2.9700e- i i 0.0609 i 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 i 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Worker •i 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.00OOe- 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- i 99.5663 i i i i i 003 004 004 003 i 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.00OOe- 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- 99.5663 =.I., 003 004 004 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Archit. Coating •i 236.4115 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 i 2.9700e- i i 0.0609 i 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 i 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ��--------------------------------------------'-------------------------------------� -------------'--------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.4734 i 0.2743 i 3.3220 0.0107 i 1.2171 � 9.4300e- 1.2266 i 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,061.381 � 1,061.381 0.0264 i i 1,062.041 003 003 8 8 i 0 1.2188 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e- 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-0.3315 281.4481 0.0159 1,061.381 1,061.381 0.0264 1,062.041 003 003 003 8 8 0 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day Ib/day Archit. Coating •1 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � ---------------------------------------------'-------------------------------------� -------------'--------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.4734 i 0.2743 i 3.3220 0.0107 i 1.2171 � 9.4300e- 1.2266 i 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,061.381 � 1,061.381 0.0264 i i 1,062.041 003 003 8 8 i 0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e- 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-0.3315 1,061.381 1,061.381 0.0264 1,062.041 003 003 8 8 0 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 4.2 Trip Summary Information ROG I NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category 154.00 Ib/day 506,227 ......................................------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 Ib/day ---------- -----------------------:------------------------ 4075.50 Mitigated •i 9.5233 i 45.9914 i 110.0422 i 0.4681 45.9592 i 0.3373 , 46.2965 i 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 i 47,917.80 47,917.80 2.1953 i : 47,972.68 •� High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) .................................................. ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 ---------- -r 2817.72 - - ------- --------------------------------------------------- . 05 05 i 39 Ho.............� .. ---_ Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 - 47,917.80 47,917.80 • 2.1953 - 47,972.68 461.20 ---- - - - - -- - 707,488 ----------------------: 707,488 ------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 05 05 39 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 145.75 ; 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 ......................................------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 ---------- ; 3,773.25 ---------- -----------------------:------------------------ 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 ......................................----------- General Office Building ......................................--- ; 288.45 ----- ; 62.55 ------------ -r ----------- --------------------------------------------------- 31.05 -- ---- - ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- 706,812 ---- ---- ---- ---- High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) .................................................. ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 ---------- -r 2817.72 - - ------- --------------------------------------------------- 3,413,937 3,413,937 Ho.............� .. ---_ ----192.00 1--T-----------y--------------3----------- 160.00 445,703 Quality Restaurant ......................................------------ + 501.12 511.92 ---------- 461.20 ---- - - - - -- - 707,488 ----------------------: 707,488 ------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H -W or C -W I H -S or C -C I H -O or C -NW IH -W or C -W I H -S or C -C I H -O or C -NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 Y 40.20 : 1 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------__ 0.021166; __ __ ? _ T _ -------- ---- ------------- General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 ; 19 4 ....................... r----------- High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60 ---------- 8.40 ---------- 6.90 --------i'--------t----------- 8.50 1 72.50 ---------- 19.00 37 --------- ----------------- 20 43 .......:......r........�------------------ -- ... ? r--------------.... T.. -------- .r.. -------- ---- r... ------------- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 ; 58 ; 38 ; 4 .......................r---------- Quality Restaurant 16.60 ---------T---------. 8.40 6.90 --------i'--------t----------- 12.00 1 69.00 ---------- 19.00 38 --------- ----------------- 18 44 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.209971 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088} 0.044216; 0.209971 0.116369; 0.014033; 0.006332 0.021166; 0.033577 0.002613; 0.001817 0.005285; 0.0007121 0.000821 r Apartments Mid Rise 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 r General Office Building 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.209971 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712: 0.000821 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5430881 0.044216, 0.209971, 0.116369, 0.014033, 0.006332, 0.021166, 0.033577, 0.002613, 0.001817, 0.005285, 0.000712: 0.000821 Restaurant) ....................... f -------- --------- _ ..... _ . Hotel 0.543088 r 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------------_-------- --------------- Quality Restaurant 0.5430881 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088. 0.044216' 0.209971' 0.116369' 0.014033' 0.006332' 0.021166' 0.033577' 0.002613' 0.001817' 0.005285' 0.000712' 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter ROG I NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day NaturalGas •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 i 4.2573 0.0418 i i 0.5292 0.5292 i i 0.5292 0.5292 + i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 i 0.1532 1 8,405.638 Mitigated ;i . i 2 2 i 7 NaturalGas 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 • 8,355.983 • 0.1602 0.1532 • 8,405.638 Unmitigated 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr Ib/day Ib/day Apartments Low i 1119.16 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1 ----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�-------------- r------71-------1 -+------'I T' ------ Apartments Mid 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 1 35784.3 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1------------------------------------------�-------�-----------------------1------- --------------------- r------ � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1283.42 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 � 1 ------- ------- -------1 '1 ------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- ------7------- r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22759.9 •1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r-------1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4769.72 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 11 1 1 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -t------71------_1 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I � �-------I-------1 I I T'------ Quality 1 5057.75 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 __x------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � v 1 1 1 1 T""--- 251.616 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr Ib/day Ib/day Apartments Low i 1.11916 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1 ----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�-------------- r------71-------1 -�------'I T' ------ Apartments Mid 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 1 i 35.7843 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1 1 ------- ----------------------------- -------�-------�-----------------------1------- --------------------- r------71_----__ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1.28342 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 � 1 ------- ------- -------1 '1 ------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- ------7------- r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22.7599 .1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r------�1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4.76972 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 1 1 I I 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -r------71-------1 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �-------I-------1 1 1 T'------ Quality 5.05775 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 --t------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 T""--- 0.251616 •1 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 077 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG N7CO CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio -0O2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day PM10 Ib/day Total Mitigated •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 � 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 i i 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 Subcategory Ib/day Ib/day 50 50 92 -------------i i Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 • 18,148.59 - 0.4874 • 0.3300 • 18,259.11 Landscaping •i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 i 152.1542 003 i i i i i i i i i • Total 30.5020 50 50 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory Ib/day Ib/day Architectural •i 2.2670 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating•' ' i i- -----------%---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- -------*------- Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products •' ' i . Hearth •i 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 18,000.00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 i i i i i i i 00 00 50 Landscaping •i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 i 152.1542 003 i i i i i i i i i • Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 50 50 92 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory Ib/day Ib/day Architectural •i 2.2670 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 1.6500 i 14.1000 6.0000 i 0.0900 1.1400 i 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 i 18,000.00 18,000.00 i 0.3450 1 0.3300 1 18,106.96 00 00 50 ---- -- - - - ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --- - -- ------------------------------ Landscaping i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 152.1542 003 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 j j F-777000 50 50 j 92 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Fire Pumos and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation Attachment C Local Hire Provision Net Change Without Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 3,623 120.77 With Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Amortized (MT CO2e/year) % Decrease in Construction -related GHG Emissions 3,024 100.80 17% EXHIBIT B SWAP E Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Principal Environmental Chemist Education SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email:yrosenfeld(i�swauexom Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years' experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 — 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 — 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113-125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019 Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5),335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor -Quality -Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation's Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS -6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium -Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23' Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 231 Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 — 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants — DIOWN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey's C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3 -TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey's Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round -up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS "Conti Perdido' Defendant. Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles — Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles — Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112' Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. Oi9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warm Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial, March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17' Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case Number cc -1 1-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant. Case 3: 1 0-cv-00622 Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013 In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019 EXHIBIT C IS p C Technical Cvnsuftatian. Data Analysis and G Ui Uation811ppartforthe Enxirumsent Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 — present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 — 2014; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001- 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 - 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 - 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 -1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 -1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 -1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service -wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed -scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high -levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi -Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. Conducted aquifer tests. Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP -61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 0 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011. E EXHIBIT D SUVA P E Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 26562 91h Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com April 6, 2022 Mitchell M. Tsai 155 South EI Molino, Suite 104 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Comments on the Coral Mountain Resort Project (SCH No. 2021020310) Dear Mr. Tsai, We have reviewed the February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") and the June 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Coral Mountain Resort Project ("Project") located in the City of La Quinta ("City"). The Project proposes to construct a mixed-use development consisting of 600 residential dwelling units, 150 key -resort rooms, 57,000 -square -feet ("SF") of resort -serving commercial and recreational space, a 16.62 -acre artificial Wave Basin, 60,000 -SF of commercial space, and 23.6 -acres of open space recreation, on the 120.8 -acre site. Our review concludes that the FEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project's air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment. Air Quality Failure to Include PDFs as Mitigation Measures The DEIR concludes that the Project would have significant air quality impacts associated with Project construction, operation, and special events. Specifically, the DEIR estimates that the Project's Phase I construction -related NOx emissions, Phase 3 operational VOC emissions, and special event VOC and NOx emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds (p. 4.1-22, Table 4.2-5; p. 4.1-27, Table 4.2-7; p. 4.1-30, Table 4.2-9). However, after the implementation of Project Design Features ("PDFs") and mitigation, the DEIR concludes that Project emissions would have less -than -significant impacts (p. 4.1-23, Table 4.2-6; p. 4.1-29, Table 4.2-8; p. 4.1-31, Table 4.2-10). The Project's air quality analysis is inadequate, as the DEIR and FEIR should have incorporated all PDFs, as described in the DEIR, as formal mitigation measures (p. 4.1-13 — 4.1-15). According to the Association of Environmental Professionals ("AEP") CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures: "While not "mitigation", a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact."' As you can see in the excerpt above, PDFs that are not formally included as mitigation measures may be eliminated from the Project's design altogether. Thus, as the PDFs described in the DEIR are not formally included as mitigation measures, we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As a result, until the PDFs are included as mitigation measures, the DEIR's air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact The DEIR indicates that Project "[b]uildout [is] anticipated to occur in three primary phases over approximately 4- to 6 -years" (p. 82). Thus, by 2026, all three phases of construction would be operational together. As such, the DEIR should have summed the Project's operational emissions for Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 in order to estimate the Project's total operational air quality impact. In order to correctly evaluate the Project's air quality impact, we summed the DEIR's operational air quality emissions from all three phases of Project buildout. We found that the Project's operational VOC and NOx emissions exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 55 pounds per day ("Ibs/day") (see table be 10W).2 1 "CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures." AEP, February 2020, available at: https://cegaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. Z "South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds." SCAQMD, April 2019, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 2 DEIR Cumulative Operational Air Quality Impact Operation DEIR VOC NOX (lbs/day) Phase 1 44.7 47.0 Phase 2 40.5 43.6 Phase 3 74.0 79.5 SWAPE 159.2 170.1 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 Exceeds? Yes Yes As you can see in the excerpt above, the Project's combined operational -related VOC and NOx emissions exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. As such, the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the DEIR or FEIR. As a result, an updated EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The DEIR and FEIR fail to mention or discuss the health risk impacts associated with the Project's construction -related and operational toxic air contaminant ("TAC") emissions whatsoever. This is incorrect for three reasons. First, by failing to require a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions.3 This is incorrect, as construction of the proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter ("DPM") emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a potential construction period of approximately 4- to 6 -years (p. 82). Furthermore, the DEIR indicates that the Project would generate approximately 8,932 daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions during Project operation (p. 4.13-43). However, the DEIR fails to evaluate Project -generated TACs or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project's construction -related and operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the DEIR is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project with the potential adverse impacts on human health. Second, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment 3 "Sierra Club v. County of Fresno." Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at: https://cegaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra/o20CIub%20v.%2OCounty/`20of%2OFresno.pdf. Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015.4 Furthermore, the State of California Department of Justice recommends warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to OEHHA and local air district guidelines.' The OEHHA guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. As the Project's construction duration exceeds the 2 -month requirement set forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance. Furthermore, the OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident ("MEIR"). Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30 -year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6 -month requirement set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an updated EIR require the analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project -generated DPM emissions for future individual projects. Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the DEIR fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD's specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.6 Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, we recommend that the DEIR and FEIR require the Specific Plan to require future individual projects to conduct an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from construction and operation. Greenhouse Gas Failure to Implement All Feasible Mitigation to Reduce Emissions The DEIR concludes that the Project would result in a significant -and -unavoidable greenhouse gas ("GHG") impact after the implementation of mitigation measure ("MM") GHG-1 (p. 4.7-20). Specifically, the DEIR states: "The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project, is shown on Table 4.7- 8, after implementation of all feasible emission reduction measures as enforceable PDFs and MM GHG- 1. As shown, Project -related GHG emissions are reduced to 3.62 MTCO2e per SP per year which is less than the applicable threshold of 3.65 MTCO2e per SP per year. While implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, would offset the GHG emissions generated 4 "Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. ' "Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act." State of California Department of Justice, available at: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6. ' "South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds." SCAQMD, April 2019, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 4 by the project that are in excess of the applicable threshold, by reducing GHG emissions elsewhere through the purchase of carbon credits, it would not change the actual GHG emissions levels of the project itself. Moreover, as the use of carbon credits as mitigation for GHG emissions has not been widely adopted in the Coachella Valley area for residential and resort community projects, this analysis conservatively considers impacts associated with GHG emissions generated by the proposed project to be significant and unavoidable because the City cannot determine with certainty that the project's GHG emissions will be reduced to a less than significant level" (p. 4.7-20). However, while we agree that the Project would result in a significant GHG impact, the DEIR's conclusion that this impact is significant -and -unavoidable is incorrect. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2): "When an EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment." As you can see, an impact can only be labeled as significant -and -unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered. Here, while the DEIR implements MM GHG-1, which requires the Project Applicant to purchase carbon offsets, the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation (p. 4.7-26). Therefore, the DEIR's conclusion that Project's GHG emissions would be significant -and -unavoidable is unsubstantiated. To reduce the Project's GHG impacts to the maximum extent possible, additional feasible mitigation measures should be incorporated, such as those suggested in the following section of this letter titled "Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions." Thus, the Project should not be approved until an updated EIR is prepared, including updated, accurate air modeling, as well as incorporating all feasible mitigation to reduce emissions to less -than -significant levels. Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project's emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project's emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR'sAir Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures ("PMM-AQ-1") and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures ("PMM-GHG-1"), as described below:' ' "4.0 Mitigation Measures." Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fPeir connectsocal addendum 4 mitigation measures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 — 4.0-10; 4.0-19 — 4.0-23; See also: "Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report." Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures — PMM-AQ-1: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency: a) Minimize land disturbance. c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt. d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities. j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet. 1) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine -driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on -road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD "SOON" funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low -emission heavy- duty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in -use off-road diesel vehicles. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs. u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters. aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible: Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer. Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less. - The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following: i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment. ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation. iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour -meter reading on installation date. - The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck -staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: i. Hour -meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date. ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify: 1. Source of supply 2. Quantity of fuel 3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title -24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency: - Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming measures, parks and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers. Provide traffic calming measures, such as: i. Marked crosswalks ii. Count -down signal timers iii. Curb extensions iv. Speed tables iv. Raised crosswalks v. Raised intersections vi. Median islands vii. Tight corner radii viii. Roundabouts or mini -circles ix. On -street parking x. Chicanes/chokers - Create urban non -motorized zones - Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi -unit residential projects Dedicate land for bike trails Limit parking supply through: i. Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements ii. Creation of maximum parking requirements iii. Provision of shared parking Require residential area parking permit. Provide ride -sharing programs i. Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles ii. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride -sharing vehicles iii. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides iv. Permanent transportation management association membership and finding requirement. Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures — PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency: b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CECA Guidelines. c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project's emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to: i. Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; V. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse; vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy; viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; W ix. Use lighter -colored pavement where feasible; X. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; A. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above. e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike -share and car -share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following: i. Promote transit -active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; iii. Improve or increase access to transit; iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; V. Incorporate affordable housing into the project; vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures; X. Provide bicycle parking; xi. Limit or eliminate park supply; xii. Unbundle parking costs; xiii. Provide parking cash -out programs; xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network; g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end -of -trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that: i. Provide car -sharing, bike sharing, and ride -sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes; iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride - matching services; iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single -occupancy vehicle; V. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms; vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non -auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride -sharing vehicles or high -occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including: i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites; ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and V. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse. k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible. 1) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in. m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as: i. Staggered starting times ii. Flexible schedules iii. Compressed workweeks n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as: i. New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii. Event promotions iii. Publications o) Implement preferential parking permit program p) Implement school pool and bus programs q) Price workplace parking, such as: i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees; ii. Implementing above market rate pricing; iii. Validating parking only for invited guests; iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v. Educating employees about available alternatives. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower -emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project's significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was 10 reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV Attachment B: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV 11 SWAPETechnical Consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Attachment A 2656 29" Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert Industrial Stormwater Compliance CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 - present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 - 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001- 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 - 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 - 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 -1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 -1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984-1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities. • Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 3 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service -wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NKDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed -scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high -levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi -Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 4 principles into the policy-making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geology With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. Conducted aquifer tests. Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). 5 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP -61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011. 0 SWAP ETechnical consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Principal Environmental Chemist Education Attachment B SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email:yrosenfeldCa swaue.com Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years' experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 — 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 — 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113-125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021 Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5),335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor -Quality -Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation's Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS -6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(l). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA. Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, A.Z. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII.• Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium -Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23' Annual International Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021 Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23'"d Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 — 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants — DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey's C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3 -TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey's Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021 Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021 Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10 Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round -up. 1996. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021 United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. Oi9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021 Trial, October 8-4-2021 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK, Case No.: No. 18-L-6845 Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021 In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517 Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc. Case Number CV20127-094749 Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021 In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al. Case Number 1:17-cv-000508 Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company. Case No. 1720288 Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al. Case No. 18STCV01162 Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020 In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant. Case No.: 1716 -CV 10006 Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019 In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS "Conti Perdido' Defendant. Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles — Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles — Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et a1., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112' Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. Oi9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017 In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warm Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial, March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17' Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case Number cc- 11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant. Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011 In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076 Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010 In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case Number 2:07CV 1052 Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021 Tania Flores From: Jennifer Nelson Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 4:52 PM To: Tania Flores; Cheri Flores Subject: FW: Comment Letter: RE: ITEM 1. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING FOR CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN (Oswit Land Trust) Attachments: Exhibit A_CDFWL Comment Letter to Andalusia (La Quinta) Wave Project -Aug 2021.pdf; Exhibit C_Comment Letter -Bighorn Institute -Coral Mountain (LQ)_2024.pdf; Exhibit B_Comment Letter -Bighorn Institute -Coral Mountain (LQ)_2021.pdf; Comment Letter - Coral Mountain La Quinta.pdf See below and attached public comment. Thank you Q"tra tev CALIFORNIA Jennifer Nelson I Executive Specialist City Manager's Office City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico I La Quinta, CA 92253 Ph. 760.777.7030 Main: 760.777.7000 www.onelson(c)-laquintaca.gov From: Jarek Dallos <jarek@oswitlandtrust.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 4:45 PM To: Jennifer Nelson <jnelson@laquintaca.gov>; Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov> Cc: Jane Garrison <jane@oswitlandtrust.org>; Bettina Rosmarino <bettina@oswitlandtrust.org>; Judy Deertrack <judydeertrack@gmail.com>; vincent_james@fws.org; heather.pert@wiIdlife.ca.gov Subject: Comment Letter: RE: ITEM 1. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING FOR CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN (Oswit Land Trust) You don't often get email from jarekPoswitlandtrust.org. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear Jennifer Nelson & Cheri Flores. I am reaching out on behalf of Jane Garrison, Executive Director of Oswit Land Trust, to share with you a comment letter regarding: RE: ITEM 1. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING FOR CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN Kindly please confirm receipt and distribute the attached letter to the City Council and the Planning Commission. Thank you. 6-Vwit 1AMd Trust JAREK DALLOS I Executive Assistant Email: jarek@OswitLandTrust.Or January 23, 2024 PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER To the City of La Quinta: Planning Department City of La Quinta Jennifer Nelson, City Manager Cheri Flores, Planning Manager Attention: TFlores@LaQuintaCA.gov RE: ITEM 1. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING FOR CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN CONSIDER RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 (EA2019-0010) AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000, ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-0003, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000 FOR THE CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT CONSISTING OF 750 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A GOLF COURSE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE; CEQA: THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT ALTERNATIVE 2 OF PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EA2019-0010, APPLIES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT; LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET, AND NORTH OF AVENUE 60 To Whom It May Concern: Oswit Land Trust is a 501C3 non-profit land conservancy dedicated to preserving critical habitat for wildlife corridors and sensitive species. We achieve our goals through the acquisition of land and advocacy. We are a proud member of the Land Trust Alliance and have over 3,000 active members who are residents within the Coachella Valley and beyond. Oswit Land Trust supports the City of La Quinta in its pride and efforts to create a viable tourism economy. The Coachella Valley is renowned for its remarkable vistas, mountain preserves, and recreation values. All of these are treasures to share with the world. We also know how delicate and fragile the balance of nature can be when the boundaries of intense tourism and { [)�ifl.od'f'ruct.or�ll,.i'. OswGt Land Trus[. PO Uok 40.10, Palm Spriggs, CA 9.1263 r. development intersect and adjoin biologically sensitive lands and habitat for endangered and threatened species. Preservation of this fragile balance is the foundation of the land decision on the proposed Club at Coral Mountain, including the golf course that has replaced a wave park and poses 30% more water usage than its predecessor project. One more golf course during a trend of global warming, during pending water shortages, during cumulative impacts to endangered species, sets the stage for public concern over proper use of resources. There are so many better options that do not present the high environmental costs. This part of our discussion focus on values and choices, but Oswit Land Trust has also addressed technical issues of mitigation compliance within this comment letter. The preservation of rich natural resources and scenic values not only require the best of our ethics, but the practical should be factored alongside the ethics — the robust natural environment is the primary reason people come to visit the Coachella Valley. If nature is sacrificed to thoughtless recreational excess, we face nothing but decline — including economic decline. The stunning natural values are the Valley's economic calling card. They are increasingly endangered from strong population growth and what seems to be excessive demands on the land base — a never ending cry for more at any cost for today's generation. The challenge with the Club at Coral Mountain Project is that it uses excessive water during drought and climate change and proposes only a boundary line and a fence to separate the city's most intensive urban uses from the "Essential Habitat" of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, among others. Can't we do better than this? The city has not yet formulated a buffer concept that softens the interface between sharply contrasting natural needs and intense urban uses. The Oswit Land Trust submitted studies and reports in the Travertine Project recently, raising these same issues, hoping the city will consider changes in its general plan, land use, conservation, open space, and climate action plans (and elements) to match the frightening environmental changes that are developing worldwide. This is long-range planning. Oswit Land Trust would love to meet with the city leaders and propose alternatives for a better and more compatible urban/natural blend that will enhance economic prosperity and perpetuate prosperity, rather than allow the regional economics to "flash" with bright lights for a decade or two of excess and then decline for those who follow. The bottom line request of Oswit Land Trust is full perimeter fencing around the golf course because there is a high death rate for the sheep in the last few years on golf courses (25 in two 0sw!t1.aod'Frust.org Oswu t [.and Tragi, PO Fk)): 40.1), Palm 1_3pripgs, CA.. - i'':• s'• ��- , years), and evidence the sheep are (of course) skirting the ranges and walking around the fences when they are partial. There are other deep dissatisfactions with the review process between the city / developer / and trustee agencies for the Bighorn Sheep and the lack of clarity in an explanation of whether the sheep are in a plan area, whether that is outside the CVMSHCP, and what jurisdictional update has occurred since 2021 with CDFWL or USFWL. Did this updated or changed DEIR get circulated to them? Should it have been? Upon review of the Draft EIR, we found nothing on the State Clearinghouse CEQA website for this new project, and it was unclear from the record whether the City re -activated the Draft EIR from 2021 choosing Alternative 2, or whether they circulated a new Draft EIR. There is language of a 2019 EA in the agenda description, but the process with the EA is not explicit in the Draft EIR. The confusion is exacerbated by a State Clearinghouse website that shows one final letter from CDFWL in August 2021 that assumes there has been Joint Project Review with the Multi -Species Habitat Plan through the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC). We called CVCC, and they say this project is outside their jurisdiction. CDFWL (Aug 2021 letter) says the project is within CVCC jurisdiction and in that letter, suggests the jurisdictional requirements of the Multi -Species Plan for mitigation, but says none of the requirements were complied with, including Section 4.0, 4.2, 4.4 and 9 Consistency Review (Multi -Species Plan). Then, in that same 2021 letter, CDFWL says the descriptions of habitat are inaccurate, and there are major deficiencies. I talked with the primary evaluator for CDFWL today, and that person said the 2021 letter is adequate mitigation, and their 2021 statement is accurate as the last statement on record. CDFWL mentioned a letter sent to them afterwards the August 2021 letter by the city/developer that chose to incorporate some of the suggested mitigation. Some of the mitigation was not adopted, some was rejected, and CDFWL chose not to place anything on the written record. Verbally, the agent said the agency considered the mitigation issues finalized. My concern is that there is no way the public would know. There is no way to measure the adequacy, identify the recommendations, check the level of compliance — without having a secret code to the process. None of this makes sense and should be resolved before certification! The "red flag" was a comment letter from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFWL) from August 2021, with the present record devoid of an update from CDFWL or US Fish and Wildlife (USFWL), the Trustee Agencies for project land that lies within "Essential Habitat" for Endangered Species. The agency letter contains deep criticisms (Exhibit A). Checking the new Draft EIR, we did not find corrections required in 2022 (FWL) for conditions that still exist in 2024. We did not find Trustee evaluation of Alternative 2 to be complied with. Os%viit1,and Fru sLorg 1 7, oo.385_��5 Oswit [And Tune, PC) Box ,702L), Palm SPrings, CA 92263 Where are the core "plan" requirements for effective mitigation — something far beyond "fencing" as a drop -box solution, but true habitat impact evaluation, study, monitoring, and compliance — something completely ignored? Oswit Land Trust has documented the following: (1) The Bighorn Institute (Exhibit C) has documented 60 deaths of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (PBS) on or near four La Quinta Golf Courses since 2012, and almost half of these deaths have occurred in the last two years. The golf courses are: (a) Traditions, (b) SilverRock, (c) PGA West, and (d) The Quarry. This is highly disturbing and shows that mitigation through fencing has not yet been accomplished in La Quinta over a long timeline. The delay, and significant sheep deaths during the delays, also raise issues of the working relationship between the Trustee Agencies, the City, and its Developers. The sheep are reported to walk around the partial boundary fences and enter at other points. Mitigation approaches appear incomplete and inconsistent — and without Trustee guidance and review. (2) We understand from CVAG the City is in the process of installing FULL PERIMETER FENCING at other golf courses, under the supervision of USFWL and/or CDFWL, and pursuant to their requirements. These agencies have always before been consulted on PBS mitigation plans but are not trustee advisors on this project. Why? (3) The concern of Oswit Land Trust is that no agency comment letters from USFWL or CDFWL are on the public record subsequent to 2021, and verbal conversations are no substitute. The fact these are Trustee Agencies with jurisdiction over federal endangered species and their habitat conditions. (4) It appears from the high death count that incomplete perimeter fencing is completely inadequate as mitigation. The Draft EIR for Coral Mountain recommends "west boundary" fencing in Alternative 2 and "full perimeter fencing" in the Revised Alternative. FWL Trustee Agencies would demand full mitigation in all alternatives. Verbally, CDFWL are saying Alternative 2 is adequate mitigation, BUT Alternative 2 leaves incomplete perimeter fencing. (5) The Coral Mountain mitigation plan has no detail, as one finds in the Shadow Rock mitigation plan, and this results from the absence of updated FWL trustee review, or adequate information on the record of the city/developer response to the CDFWL letter of August 2021. Shadow Mountain FWL mitigation provided for placement of golf holes on the movement corridor, earthen berms on the perimeter, dense vegetation, and and a series of design mitigations specific to that project. These were reviewed by Trustee Agencies, not suggested by the developer! The Section 4.0 language for ShadowRock begins as a directive, "If the project is redesigned, it will incorporate design features to minimize impacts to PBS, such as......" 0swiltl.aod'I'rust.org -loo.385_92— Oswit [And Tune, PC) Box ,702L), Palm SPrings, CA 92263 For the Planning Commission to proceed without proper agency review of federally endangered species habitat requirements, alongside an alarming death rate on local golf courses, seems hazardous and out of compliance with federal and state laws. We would like resolution and a more concrete idea of the Mitigation and Monitoring recommendations, those options that were not incorporated into design that CDFWL referenced, and what the difference is. This should be clear on the record. Oswit Land Trust recommends a continuance of the hearing until the federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over habitat conditions, including fencing or any other remedies, can be consulted on proper and legal mitigation. Thank you for consideration of this discussion and our requests for corrective action. Sincerely, Jane Garrison, Executive Director Oswit Land Trust Carbon copy: Vincent James, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Heather Brashear, California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - CDFWL Comment Letter to Coral Mtn. Andalusia Wave Project_2021 (Non -Compliance) Exhibit B - Bighorn Institute Comment Letter to Coral Mtn. Andalusia Wave Project_2021 (Death Rate) Exhibit C - Bighorn Institute Comment Letter to Club at Coral Mountain_2024 (Death Rate) Y � - wL+f...tip., ,,•i .h 1, .� . _ 0-w!tl.and'I•rust.oru � oO.385.�'�: OswGt Land Trus[. PO Uok 40.10, Palm Spriogs, CA 9.1263 r. State of California - Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor CDFW OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, CA 91764 (909) 484-0459 www.wiIdlife.ca.gov August 13, 2021 Sent via email Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 consultingplan ner _laguintaca.gov Governor's Office of Planning & Research August 16 2021 STATE CLEARING HOUSE Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Dear Nicole Criste: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of La Quinta for Coral Mountain Resort (Project), State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310, pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statute and guidelines'. Thank you for the opportunity and extension of August 13, 2021 to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may need to exercise its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code (Fish & G. Code). CDFW ROLE CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Fish & G. Code, § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW provides, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on Projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. 'CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The "CEQA Guidelines" are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000. Conserving Cafifornia's Wifdfife Since 1870 Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 2 of 24 CDFW may also act as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish & G. Code Sections 1600 et seq.), a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (Fish & G. Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1), and/or for administering the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program (NCCP). CDFW also administers the Native Plant Protection Act, Natural Community Conservation Program, and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to California's fish and wildlife resources. CDFW issued Natural Community Conservation Plan Approval and Take Authorization in 2008 for the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), as per Section 2800, et seq., of the California Fish and Game Code. The CVMSHCP established a multiple species conservation program to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the Incidental Take of Covered Species in association with activities covered under the permit. CDFW is providing the following comments as they relate to the Project's consistency with the CVMSHCP and the CEQA. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Project Location The Project site encompasses an area of approximately 929 acres in the southeastern portion of the City of La Quinta. The local area is characterized as a developing area with a number of golf course and residential communities to the north, west, east, and southeast, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the west and south, and open space and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) percolation ponds to the south. The Santa Rosa Mountains are to the west and south and Coral Mountain is within the southwest portion of the Project property. The approximately 386 -acre portion of the Project site, to be developed under SP 2020-0002, is bounded by vacant land and Avenue 58 to the north; Madison Street to the east; residential estates, vacant land, and the Avenue 60 alignment to the south; and Coral Mountain, and vacant land to the west. Project Description The Project area consists of 929 acres in total. Of that, 543 acres occur on the east side of Madison Street, and will continue to develop as provided under SP 03-067, as a residential and golf country club. The western portion of the Project, on the west side of Madison Street, proposes the development of the approximately 386 -acre area and is the focus of the DEIR. This portion of the Project would be developed under a new Specific Plan (SP 2020-0002) with up to 496 low density residential units on 232.3 acres; tourist and commercial land uses including a resort hotel with up to 150 rooms, a 16.62 -acre recreational Wave Basin facility, 104 resort residential units, and 57,000 square feet of commercial development on approximately 120.8 acres; 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses on approximately 7.7 acres; and open space recreational uses on approximately 23.6 acres adjacent to Coral Mountain. Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 3 of 24 Within the 386 acres west of Madison Street, the Project also requests approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019-0002), Zone Change (ZC 2019-0004), Specific Plan Amendment (SP 03-067), Specific Plan (SP 2020-0002), Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2019-0005), Site Development Permit (SDP 2021-0001), and Development Agreement (DA 2021-0002), as detailed below. 1. General Plan Amendment The General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019-0002) will amend the current General Plan land use designations from General Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Open Space — Recreation to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, and Open Space —Recreation. 2. Zone Change The proposed Zone Change (ZC 2019-0004) will revise the existing zoning of the Specific Plan Area from Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Golf Course, to Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Low Density Residential (RL), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Tourist Commercial (CT). 3. Specific Plan Amendment The Specific Plan Amendment (Amendment V of Specific Plan 03-067) is being processed to remove the area west of Madison Street from Specific Plan 03-067, thus, creating two separate and distinct communities, "Coral Mountain Resort", west of Madison Street, and "Andalusia Country Club", east of Madison Street. The Specific Plan Amendment will result in only the deletion of the westerly 386 acres. No changes to land use designations, densities or intensities, development standards or guidelines are proposed for the lands east of Madison Street. It is expected that Andalusia will continue to build out under the requirements of the SPA. 4. Specific Plan Approval of the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan (SP 2020-0002) will establish a new master plan governing the allowable land uses, design guidelines, and development standards for the 386 -acre property west of Madison Street, to allow creation of a boutique resort and master -planned community. The Project will result in a variety of land uses on the westerly 386 acres, as shown in Exhibit 3-5 of the DEIR. Low Density Residential land uses will occupy approximately 232.3 acres and result in a maximum of 496 dwelling units. Tourist Commercial land uses will result in 104 dwelling units, 150 hotel rooms, and 57,000 square feet of private resort -serving commercial uses available to residents and hotel guests, on approximately 120.8 acres. General Commercial land uses will occupy approximately 7.7 acres, with up to 60,000 square feet of retail commercial uses available to the general public. Open Space Recreation land uses will occur on approximately 23.6 acres in the southwest portion of the site. The Project proposes four planning areas, identified as Planning Areas (PA) I, II, III, and IV, on the 386 -acre property. PA I is designated for Neighborhood Commercial; PA II is designated for Low Density Residential; PA III is designated for Tourist Commercial; and PA IV is designated for open space Parks and Recreation located adjacent to Coral Mountain. Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 4 of 24 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDFW's comments and recommendations on the DEIR are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW has concerns regarding the completeness of the DEIR and finds the conclusion in the DEIR that Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS; Sheep; Ovis canadensis nelsoni) are not on the Project site inaccurate, and the corresponding lack of avoidance and minimization measures inadequate to protect fish and wildlife resources, specifically Peninsular bighorn sheep. Specific comments include that there is: no discussion or analysis that addresses the presence of sheep on and directly adjacent to the Project site; inadequate avoidance and minimization measures for Peninsular bighorn sheep, burrowing owl, bats, and nesting birds; questions about land ownership and adjacency to the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Area; and concerns about the adequacy and enforceability of mitigation measures proposed by the City of La Quinta (the CEQA lead agency). CDFW is concerned that the DEIR fails to adequately address Peninsular bighorn sheep and requests that the DEIR be revised and recirculated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(a). The revised DEIR should include: biological surveys to assess Peninsular bighorn sheep use of the site and the areas immediately adjacent to the Project site; clear identification of any proposed avoidance and minimization measures to avoid take of Peninsular bighorn sheep; discussion and analysis based on documented sheep use of the Coral Mountain which demonstrates the reduction or elimination of potential impacts; and discussion on land ownership for the Coral Mountain area, specifically regarding Bureau of Land Management owned property; additional analysis of light and noise -related impacts on Coral Mountain, among other items included in the discussion below. Additional details on these comments are provided below. Mitigation Measures for Project Impacts to Biological Resources Coachella Valley MSHCP Implementation The proposed Project occurs within the CVMSHCP area and is subject to the provisions and policies of the CVMSHCP. To be considered a covered activity, Permittees need to demonstrate that proposed actions are consistent with the CVMSHCP and its associated Implementing Agreement. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency and is signatory to the Implementing Agreement of the CVMSHCP. To demonstrate consistency with the CVMSHCP, the DEIR should address, at a minimum, the City's obligations as follows: a. Addressing the collection of fees as set forth in Section 8.5 of the CVMSHCP. b. Demonstrating how the Project complies with the CVMSHCP requirements and policies, including: 1) compliance with relevant processes to ensure application of the Conservation Area requirements set forth in Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP and thus, satisfaction of the local acquisition obligation; 2) compliance with the applicable Land Use Adjacency Guidelines set forth in Section 4.5 of the CVMSHCP; 3) compliance with the Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Measures in Section 4.4 of the CVMSHCP; and 4) implementation consistent with the Species Conservation Goals and Objectives in Section 9 of the CVMSHCP. Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 5 of 24 Thus, CDFW would like to make a clarification to the following statement within the DEIR: "The construction of the proposed project will change the physical environment of the project site, which is currently vacant and undeveloped. The site is surrounded by development to the north, east, and south, and vacant land to the north, west, and south. Although the proposed project will result in the permanent loss of approximately 386 acres of vacant land, the project will be required to pay fees to assure the off-site conservation of habitat lands for sensitive species covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Therefore, the loss of biological resources will be less than significant with the payment of fees to avoid impacts on special status species. Additionally, the project is required to conduct burrowing owl, bat, and nesting bird surveys to determine whether roosting or nesting is occurring at the site. If roosting or nesting is discovered at the project site during the surveys, the mitigation measures include performance standards to ensure construction of the project does not significant impact biological resources (see Section 4.3, Biological Resources)." This statement is inaccurate. Demonstrating implementation of the CVMSHCP is not simply paying the required development fee; it requires demonstrating consistency with all the CVMSHCP's requirements that provides a permittee's project with Take coverage through the CVMSHCP for project impacts to Covered Species and covered natural communities classified by the CVMSHCP as "adequately conserved" by the overall CVMSHCP. Please revise the DEIR to include a complete analysis of how the City ensures the Project fully implements the required terms and conditions of the CVMSHCP. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep The proposed Project occurs in or immediately adjacent to Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000) and has the potential to impact Peninsular bighorn sheep, a federally endangered species (Fed. Register, Vol. 63, No. 52, 1998) and a State endangered and California Fully Protected species (Calif. Dep. Fish and Game 1992), and a Covered Species under CVMSHCP. Fully Protected Mammals may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their Take except for necessary scientific research, including efforts to recover fully protected species (Fish & G. Code Section 4700). All Covered Activities of the CVMSHCP must avoid actions that will result in violations of the fully protected species provisions (NCCP Permit # 2835-2008-001-06). Take cannot be provided under the CVMSHCP for Peninsular bighorn sheep, however, CDFW has acknowledged and agreed that if the measures set forth in the CVMSHCP are fully complied with, the Covered Activities are not likely to result in Take of these species. It is critical that to receive coverage for potential Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat that the Project properly implements the CVMSHCP. CDFW requests that the DEIR is modified to include a discussion of State Fully Protected Mammals which should clearly state that no Take is allowed of Peninsular bighorn sheep including under the CVMSHCP. The proposed Project occurs in Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000) and has the potential to impact Peninsular bighorn sheep, a federally Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 6 of 24 endangered species (Fed. Register, Vol. 63, No. 52, 1998) and a State endangered and California Fully Protected species (Calif. Dep. Fish and Game 1992), and a Covered Species under CVMSHCP. The DEIR incorrectly identifies that "this species [PBS] is not present at the site due to the absence of suitable habitat" (page 231). This statement is inaccurate. CDFW has monitored PBS movement in the Santa Rosa and Santa Jacinto mountains since 2009 with GPS collars and direct observation. CDFW's GPS data documents current and historic sheep use of Coral Mountain (Figure 1; CDFW 2020). sL. w '�#• �+IL tf'i + • ++* +a ..._. • ­., - . r,� I Sdaa: 6n . drme+. iM.r�. ira�rrap Gap . h2Bd6.�563. [-ritr. aPS_iri�xl9. 6.•9•x.. �. K•b� lw NL UMrFae c^w�jr. Bpi ipn. ME7i 6NLhF.'NW iSanpk f G Qa.�+yu m�•bu0xa. W H 61511a.e Cdwmrxy a n.s a.s 1 a Mires Hrsiioricai Peninsular Bignom Sheep GPS Data - coral Mountain Figure 1. Historical Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Use of Project Site and Surrounding Area. CDFW research on sheep movement, based on GPS data and direct observation, shows a trend of ewes spending a greater portion of their time in low -elevation habitat particularly during the Iamb -rearing season (CDFW 2020). This temporal shift to lower elevations may be a response to long-term drought conditions. Alluvial fans and washes, where more productive soils support greater plant growth than steeper, rockier soils, tend to have more concentrated, nutritious forage (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). Following lambing, ewes have high energy needs for lactation and the time -period surrounding lambing and nursing is very demanding in terms of the energy and protein required by bighorn ewes. A wide range of forage resources and vegetation associations is needed to meet annual and drought related Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 7 of 24 variations in forage quality and availability. Lower elevation habitat can include alluvial fans, washes, and desert flats that provide more abundant and high-quality vegetation, such as water -rich cactus, than steeper terrain, and are crucial to the viability of bighorn sheep populations during times of drought (FWS 2000), and provide an important source of nutrition and water during lactation (Hansen and Deming 1980) and Iamb -rearing (Hines 2019). CDFW is concerned that the proposed development will introduce forage and water sources that will attract rams, ewes, and Iambs, where they may become at risk to injury and death from drowning in swimming pools, toxic plants poisoning, vehicle strikes, the effects of ingesting intestinal parasites present among watered lawns and grasses, and other potential urban hazards. In the City of La Quinta, existing developments (including SilverRock, PGA West, and The Quarry at La Quinta) along the wildland-urban interface have become attractive nuisances for sheep because of artificial features that attract sheep, for example grass and artificial water sources. This results in sheep habituated to urban environments, and can lead to increased mortality risk through transmission of disease, ingestion of toxic materials, vehicle strikes, and drowning in artificial water sources. These developments are adjacent to Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. As a result of these issues, the MSHCP requirement for building a fence at this interface was triggered and the City of La Quinta is currently working with the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission to build a sheep fence. CDFW is concerned that this Project will create similar conditions and become an attractive nuisance to sheep that currently use Coral Mountain. Further, once the fence is built to exclude sheep in other areas of La Quinta the sheep may migrate to this Project site if it has attractive features. The revised DEIR should identify and implement specific measures, such as fencing, to keep sheep out of urban areas and prevent trespass of humans and domestic animals into adjacent sheep habitat. Prior to the adoption of the DEIR, CDFW requests completion surveys and a habitat use assessment of Peninsular bighorn sheep, a California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511), located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected. The surveys and assessment should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area. Focused species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one- year period, and assessments for rare plants to be valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of drought. Survey information and results in coordination with CDFW staff should be used to develop avoidance and minimization measures to avoid Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep. Based on the survey results and historic use of the Project site, Project modifications may be required to avoid Take of sheep. Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 8 of 24 Recreational Effects on Peninsular Bighorn Sheep CDFW is concerned that the impacts of the increased human activity on Peninsular bighorn sheep and other sensitive resources was not adequately addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR assumes no presence of Peninsular bighorn sheep and therefore does not address edge effects on Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep. In the CVMSHCP, Species Objective 1 d for Peninsular bighorn sheep is "Ensure that any Development allowed does not fragment Essential Habitat, and that edge effects from such Development are minimized." The Project is adjacent to Essential Habitat and the Santa Rosa Mountains Habitat Wildlife Area. Addressing edge effects is a CVMSHCP requirement that has not been adequately addressed and therefore the Permittee has not ensured that the Project demonstrates compliance with the CVMSHCP. The CEQA document describes Plan Area IV as 23.6 acres of natural open space for low - impact active and passive recreational activities, including hiking, biking and rope and zipline courses. This open space area is located adjacent to Coral Mountain, which has rock outcrops known to be used as roosting habitat for several species of bats. Coral Mountain is also known to be used by Peninsular bighorn sheep. Limited details are provided in the CEQA document on the types and locations of proposed recreational infrastructure, e.g., multi -use trails, restroom facilities, trail and other recreational lightning, etc., or the permitted recreational uses within the open space areas, and enforcement plans. Unauthorized public recreational use off trails by people, bikes, and dogs in sheep habitat within the Santa Rosa mountains may impact sheep use of the habitat. The current lack of enforcement of trail use and trail development in the adjacent conservation areas is creating undesirable conditions for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Colby and Botta 2016). Potential issues include startling of ewes and Iambs foraging in washes by mountain bikes; off -leash dogs and dogs in areas that don't allow dogs potentially chasing and harassing sheep; and creation of unauthorized trespass trails by user groups that intrude into sensitive sheep habitat While some recreationists observe the trail rules and keep their dogs on leash, many people are observed not complying with the trail use regulations. The Project should provide clear measures to avoid contributing to trespass issues and ensure a safe environment for PBS. CDFW recommends that inclusion of biological mitigation measures for sheep that identify funding and resources for enforcing trail use rules which could include signage, enforcement, public education, and removal of unauthorized trails. Most of these measures will require enforcement to ensure they are enacted and properly followed throughout the life of the Project. The trails, rope courses, and zipline may create an easy and tempting access point for the residents into the open space areas. Without enforcement of trail use rules within the Project's open space the adjacent habitat, Coral Mountain could become saturated with unauthorized trails. Measures such as leash laws, Covenants, Conditions and Restriction for invasive plants and pets, trail regulations, and fencing requirements require constant enforcement. CDFW requests that the City revise and recirculate the DEIR to analyze impacts to sheep, burrowing owl, and bats prior to Project implementation and final approval. The level of Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 9 of 24 significance should be revised from "Less than significant" to "Significant" for biological resources unless the City provides adequate analysis to the contrary. The Lead agency must commit itself to mitigation and either adopt performance standard for future approval or analyze alternatives in detail. The strategy for identifying and evaluating the mitigation should be identified and in place before the Project is initiated. The revised DEIR should provide clear details on recreational infrastructure and permitted recreational activities; control of access to areas outside of the development; and enforcement methods to ensure trespass, lighting, and noise does not affect adjacent sheep and bat roosting habitat. The revised DEIR should identify who will be responsible for this enforcement and funding to support enforcement of the land use adjacency mitigation measures to ensure they are properly implemented throughout the life of the project. The CVMSHCP identifies a simple barrier fence as a mitigation concept to separate PBS from lethal threats in urban environments. We request coordination with CDFW to identify suitable locations for trails and fencing surrounding the property, to keep both sheep and people in their respective areas. CDFW further requests that the City add a mitigation measure for fencing along the boundaries of the property accessible to sheep to minimize potential impacts to PBS from the project development. The Recovery Plan for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep identifies that fences should be constructed to exclude bighorn sheep from urban areas where they may begin using urban sources of food and water. Fences serve several functions including: "(1) separating bighorn sheep from potential threats of urbanization (e.g., toxic plants, parasites, accidents, vector-borne diseases, traffic, herbicides, pesticides, behavioral habituation), (2) controlling human and pet access to remaining bighorn sheep habitat, (3) preventing bighorn sheep from becoming habituated to and dependent upon artificial sources of food and water, and (4) modifying habituated behaviors and redirection into remaining native habitat. Although fencing may be viewed as a last resort to other potential forms of aversive conditioning, prudent planning dictates that mitigation be required to offset the likelihood of future adverse effects (behavioral habituation and increased mortality rates) when new projects are approved along the urban interface. Though actual fence construction could be contingent upon future use by sheep and the ineffectiveness of other potential deterrents, the wherewithal, responsibilities, and easements for fences should be determined and secured at the time of project approval". CDFW requests the incorporation of the following measures to help protect bighorn sheep from development effects: BIO -[XX]: Project activities and infrastructure should be designed to avoid Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep, a State fully protected species, which has the potential to be present within or adjacent to the Project area. Peninsular bighorn sheep use Coral Mountain and the surrounding conserved habitat within the Santa Rosa Wildlife Area for roaming, foraging, and lambing. To ensure no Incidental Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep, the following measures are required: 1. A biological survey and assessment of year-round habitat use by Peninsular sheep will be conducted by a qualified biologist, pre -approved by CDFW, prior to Project approval. Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 10 of 24 2. All recreational infrastructure and activities such as trails, rope courses, and zipline(s) shall be contained within the development footprint. Trails and other recreational activities will not lead into or encourage use of adjacent natural areas. 3. No plant species toxic to bighorn sheep, such as oleander (Nerium oleander), lantana (Lantana sp.) and laurel cherry (Prunus sp.), shall be used for landscaping within or around the development. Control and do not plant non- native vegetation, including grass, in the development where it may attract or concentrate bighorn sheep or invade and degrade bighorn sheep habitat (e.g., tamarisk, fountain grass). Use native vegetation in the development landscaping. Along fenced sections of the urban interface, ornamental and toxic plants should not extend over or through fences where they may be accessible to browsing bighorn sheep. The Project will use Table 4-112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping of the CVMSHCP as guidance on a landscaping planting palette. 4. To prevent sheep from entering the Project site or human intrusion into sheep habitat, fences will be placed along the western boundary of PA II and PA III including III -G (DEIR Exhibit 1.2, pg. 1-8), and PA IV; and the southern edge of PA II, PA III, and PA IV development site (Figure 2). A fencing plan and further avoidance and minimization measure shall be developed in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Fences should be functionally equivalent or better than fencing designs in the Recovery Plan, which are describes as 2.4 meters (8 feet) high and should not contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be entangled. Gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. 5. Intentional enticement of bighorn sheep onto private property shall be prohibited and enforced using fines if necessary, including vegetation, mineral licks, or unfenced swimming pools, ponds, or fountains upon which bighorn sheep may become dependent for water. 6. Construction of water bodies that may promote the breeding of midges (Culicoides sp.) shall be prohibited. Water features should be designed to eliminate blue -tongue and other vector-borne diseases by providing deeper water (over 0.9 meters [3 feet]), steeper slopes (greater than 30 degrees), and if possible, rapidly fluctuating water levels, or other current best practices. As needed, coordinate with local mosquito and vector control district to ensure management of existing water bodies that may harbor vector species. 7. An educational program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the resort, open space, and low-density community programs through the use of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 11 of 24 sheep, what threats this species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these threats. This includes information that explains: (1) why restrictions on toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged. 8. Ensure funding for implementation, enforcement, and effectiveness assessment of the above measures, for the life of the development, to help ensure protection of sheep and to prevent trespass from the Project site into adjacent sheep habitat I "0 = R Figure 2. Proposed Sheep fencing plan shown in blue outline on the edge of Project site. Fuel Modification The DER states that the Project is not within an area mapped as "very high, high, or moderate fire hazard severity zones, therefore, no impacts are anticipated" by the development. While CDFW recognizes that the area is not classified as being within a fire hazard area, we are concerned that the Project's design puts an additional burden on public Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 12 of 24 lands to operate as defensible space rather than include the defensible space within the development footprint. According to Public Resource Code 4291 the development should include a minimum of 100 feet of defensible space within the development footprint. Additionally, County of Riverside Ordinance NO. 695, Section 3, states that: "(1) a one hundred (100) foot wide strip of land at the boundary of an unimproved parcel adjacent to a roadway; and/or (2) a one hundred (100) foot wide strip of land around structure(s) located on an adjacent improved parcel (some or all of this clearance may be required on the unimproved parcel depending upon the location of the structure on the improved parcel). The County Fire Chief or his or her designee may require more than a one hundred (100) foot width or less than a one hundred (100) foot width for the protection of public health, safety or welfare or the environment." As development increases within the area near or adjacent to conservation or public natural lands, the risk of wildfire increases and the need for defensible space rises. Additionally, climate change has increased the frequency and duration in which wildfire season occurs (Li and Banerjee, 2021). As the climate continues to change and development continues to encroach upon natural resources, wildfires will continue to increase even in areas not designated as high fire risk. Thus, CDFW requests the incorporation of the following measure to help protect natural resources on public open space and conservation lands from development effects: BIO -[XX]: With respect to defensible space and impacts to biological resources, the Project shall consult with the Riverside County Fire Department and fully describe and identify the location, acreage, and composition of defensible space within the proposed Project footprint. Base on the consultation the Project shall be designed so that impacts associated with defensible space (fuel modification, fire breaks, etc.) shall not be transferred to adjacent open space or conservation lands. Burrowing Owls A project -specific biology report in the DEIR identifies suitable burrowing habitat within the Project area. To increase the probability of detecting burrows occupied by burrowing owls, multiple surveys should be conducted depending on the proposed start of construction activities and how it coincides with the burrowing owl breeding or non -breeding seasons. To minimize the chance of Project activities resulting in Take of nesting burrowing owls, CDFW recommends that the City revise MM 13I0-1 and condition the measure to include the following (edits are in bold and strikethro unh): BI0-1: A-bBurrowing owl ^i�Ge surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist, pre -approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ret mere th-aR 30 Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 13 of 24 days prior to any site disturbance activities (grubbing, grading, and nenstr,,,,ti A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site disturbance activities. If disturbance activities are expected to start during the burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys shall be completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre -construction survey shall be conducted following guidelines in the CDFW 2012, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. is required to i se onnenteid nretenel (as determined CDFW}. Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and an area up to 500 feet 150 meters outside the Project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged, and a 160 feet 200 -meter diameter buffer will be established during non - breeding season or a 2500 feet 500 -meter diameter buffer during the breeding season. The buffer area will be staked and flagged. A list of avoidance and minimization measures such as, but not limited to, the use of hay bales, daily biological monitoring, and trail cameras shall be provided to CDFW for review prior to any ground disturbance. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow. For# the burrows isfound to be unoccupied, the qualified biologist will coordinate with CDFW on the methods to make the burrows will he merle inaccessible to owls, and construction may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied and impacts to the owl(s) cannot be avoided, a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan will be developed and reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies prior to the relocation of owls. ewls shall he relenated ni irs cant to annented Wildlife AgeRGY nretenelc. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrow within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. If burrowing owls are observed with the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures for CDFW to review. Nesting Birds Regarding the protection of nesting birds, it is the Project proponent's responsibility to avoid Take of all nesting birds. The timing of birds starting and finishing nesting activities is variable from year to year based on the species, rainfall conditions, shifts in local climate conditions, and other factors. CDFW recommends that qualified biologist(s) are pre -approved by CDFW to confirm they have the experience necessary to fulfill their biological monitoring responsibilities. Additionally, biological monitoring activities are required for the duration of construction activities. CDFW recommends that at minimum, the City revise MM BIO -6 and conditions the Project to include the following (edits are in bold and strike+hrei iivh): BIO -6: To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation removal and ground -disturbing activities shall be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (Ianuar„ 15 thre1 gh August pct 34 `. Any vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and/or construction Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 14 of 24 activities that occur during the nesting season will require that all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist that is pre -approved by CDFW. Prior to commencement of clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys within 14 days and repeated 3 days prior to ground disturbing activities. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. The buffer may be modified and/or other im. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgment, or as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgement as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies to avoid Take of nesting birds. Noise The noise study in the CEQA document identifies a significant noise threshold of 85 dBH and finds that noise levels associated with the construction and operations of the Project would be close to, but not exceed, the noise threshold. CDFW requests the incorporation of the following measure to help protect wildlife from development impacts: BIO -[XX]: To reduce noise -related impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain, the Project shall continue taking noise level measurements during both Project construction and post -construction operations to determine if noise levels exceed thresholds outlined in the CEQA document and inform if additional avoidance and minimization measures are required. To protect wildlife using Coral Mountain, the noise threshold affecting this area shall be reduced to 75 dBA as determined appropriate in the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in CVMSHCP Section 4.5. If noise levels exceed this threshold, the Project shall make changes to their operations and/or adopt other minimization measures to reduce noise impacts below 75 dBA to minimize noise -related impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain. Lighting The CEQA document includes an analysis of lighting with a focus on impacts to aesthetics. A significant source of artificial nighttime lighting with the potential to impact wildlife using Coral Mountain (e.g., PBS, bats, etc.) comes from lighting associated with the Wave Basin, which includes seventeen, 80 -foot -high light poles. Further, onsite lightning is planned within PA IV, the open space area adjacent to Coral Mountain. Although the CEQA document indicates that all lightning will be shielded and directed away from wildlife areas, CDFW recommends that additional lightning analysis during Project construction and operations is needed to determine that lightning impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain will be less than significant. To determine if artificial nighttime lighting associated with Project construction and operations will Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 15 of 24 result in minimal to no glare (500 or less candela) to all areas of Coral Mountain, CDFW recommends that lighting and glare impacts continue to be evaluated during both Project construction and operations. CDFW requests the inclusion of the following new measures in the DEIR: BIO -[XX]: To reduce nighttime artificial lighting -related impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain, the Project shall continue taking lightning measurements during both Project construction and post -construction operations to determine impacts of nighttime artificial lightning on Coral Mountain and the wildlife it supports. To protect wildlife using Coral Mountain, project construction and operations shall result in no to minimal glare (500 or less candela) to all areas of Coral Mountain. If light or glare impacts to Coral Mountain exceed this threshold, the Project shall make changes to their operations and/or adopt landscape shielding, dimming, lighting curfews or other appropriate measures that result in the Project causing minimal to no glare to all areas of Coral Mountain. Land Ownership A portion of the property appears to be owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and is a part of the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area which is jointly managed by BLM and CDFW (BLM and CDFG 1980). This is an area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a management plan for the preservation of the wildlife resources and their habitats. The Santa Rosa Mountains Habitat Management Plan was developed and implemented under the Sikes Act of October 18, 1974 (PL 93-452). Please clarify in the DEIR if a portion of the Project is on or adjacent to the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area, owned by BLM, and identify what mitigation measures will be implemented to maintain the natural conditions of the area for wildlife resources. Please provide information in the DEIR on any coordination with BLM and CDFW on use of the Project site and how that may affect the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area. State Regulatory Environment In the State Regulatory Environment section (p. 4.3-3), the DEIR fails to identify state regulations that are applicable to the Project including: Natural Community Conservation Protection Act (Fish & G. Code Sections 2800 et seq.), Lake and Streambed Agreements (Fish & G. Code Section 1600 et seq.); Fully Protected Species (Fish & G. Code Section 4700), and CEQA. Please revise the DEIR to identify the above regulations and how they apply to this Project. Drought -tolerant Landscaping California is experiencing one of the most severe droughts on record. To ameliorate the water demands of this Project, CDFW recommends incorporation of water -wise concepts in project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species, and installing water -efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Local water agencies/districts, and resource conservation districts in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 16 of 24 and some facilities display drought -tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought -tolerant landscaping and water -efficient irrigation systems is available on California's Save our Water website: http://saveourwater.com/what-you-can- do/tips/landscaping/ 14 V/ I:is]►1Ji 1=V k IF_1017_11IF_1 CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special -status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be found at the following link: https://www.wiIdIife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be submitted online or mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: CNDDB(c-).wildlife.ca.gov. CDFW CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER COORDINATION CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Coral Mountain Resort Project to assist in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. Our review and analysis of the DEIR identified a number of significant new Project impacts and provides corresponding mitigation and minimization measures, as described above, which would clearly lessen significant project impacts on the biological resources in the area. Therefore, CDFW requests that the City of La Quinta revise and recirculate the DEIR, for disclosure to the public, once the requested additional analyses have been prepared and the additional mitigation and minimization measures have been added to the Project, and all of these substantial modifications have been documented in the revised Draft EIR for review and comment by the citizens of California and interested public agencies. CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize impacts. We request a meeting to discuss our comments at your earliest convenience. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Carly Beck at carly.beck wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, ,Do^cuu Slig/n Ie^d by: �l p DF423498814B441 _. For Scott Wilson Environmental Program Manager Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 17 of 24 ec: Heather Pert, heather. pert(a)_wildlife.ca.gov Office of Planning and Research, Rollie White, USFWS Dani Ortiz, BLM Literature Cited State Clearinghouse, Sacramento BLM (U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management) and CDFG (State of California Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game),1980. Santa Rosa Wildlife Habitat Management Plan: A Sikes Act Project. The Santa Rosa Mountains Habitat Management Plan was developed and will be implemented under the Sikes Act of October 18, 1974. (PL 93-452) Colby, J., and R. Botta. 2016. Peninsular bighorn sheep annual report 2015. California CDFW of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Region. https://wiIdIife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Bighorn- Sheep/Desert/Peninsular/Literature#312051077-annual-reports Colby, J., and R. Botta. 2019. Peninsular bighorn sheep annual report 2019-2020. California CDFW of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Region. https://wiIdIife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Bighorn- Sheep/Desert/Peninsular/Literature#312051077-annual-reports Hanson, C. G. and O.V. Deming 1980. Growth and Development. Pages 152-171 in G. Monson and L. Sumner, eds. The desert bighorn: its life history, ecology, and management. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscan, AZ Hines, K. 2019. Post -Partum Habitat Use for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) in Southern California. (Unpublished master's thesis). California State University, San Marcos. Li, S., and T. Banerjee 2021. Spatial and temporal pattern of wildfires in California from 2000 to 2019. Scientific Reports. https://www.nature.com/articles/s4l598-021-88131-9.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000. Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. httas://www.fws.aov/carlsbad/SDeciesStatusList/RP/20001025 RP PBS.Ddf ATTACHMENT 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the City of La Quinta, Coral Mountain Resort Project Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties MM BIO -[XX]: Project activities and Timing: Prior Implementation: infrastructure should be designed to avoid to Project City of La Quinta. Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep, a State Approval. Monitoring and fully protected species, which has the Methods: See Reporting: See potential to be present within or adjacent to Mitigation Mitigation the Project area. Peninsular bighorn sheep Measures and Measures and use Coral Mountain and the surrounding Sub -measures. Sub -measures. conserved habitat within the Santa Rosa Wildlife Area for roaming, foraging, and lambing. To ensure no Incidental Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep, the following measures are required: 1. A biological survey and assessment of year-round habitat use by Peninsular sheep will be conducted by a qualified biologist, pre -approved by CDFW, prior to Project approval. 2. All recreational infrastructure and activities such as trails, rope courses, and zipline(s) shall be contained within the development footprint. Trails and other recreational activities will not lead into or encourage use of adjacent natural areas. 3. No plant species toxic to bighorn sheep, such as oleander (Nerium oleander), lantana (Lantana sp.) and laurel cherry (Prunus sp.), shall be used for landscaping within or around the development. Control and do not plant non-native vegetation, including grass, in the development where it may attract or concentrate bighorn sheep or invade and degrade bighorn sheep habitat (e.g., tamarisk, fountain grass). Use native vegetation in the development landscaping. Along fenced sections of the urban interface, ornamental and toxic plants should not extend over or through fences where they may be accessible to browsing bighorn sheep. The Project will use Table 4- 112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping of the CVMSHCP as guidance on a landscaping planting palette. 4. To prevent sheep from entering the Project site or human intrusion into sheep habitat, fences will be placed along the western boundary of PA II and PA III including III -G (DEIR Exhibit 1.2, pg. 1-8), and PA IV; and the southern edge of PA II, PA III, and PA IV development site (Figure 2). A fencing plan and further avoidance and minimization measure shall be developed in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Fences should be functionally equivalent or better than fencing designs in the Recovery Plan, which are describes as 2.4 meters (8 feet) high and should not contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be entangled. Gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. 5. Intentional enticement of bighorn sheep onto private property shall be prohibited and enforced using fines if necessary, including vegetation, mineral licks, or unfenced swimming pools, ponds, or fountains upon which bighorn sheep may become dependent for water. 6. Construction of water bodies that may promote the breeding of midges (Culicoides sp.) shall be prohibited. Water features should be designed to eliminate blue -tongue and other vector-borne diseases by providing deeper water (over 0.9 meters [3 feet]), steeper slopes (greater than 30 degrees), and if possible, rapidly fluctuating water levels, or other current best practices. As needed, coordinate with local mosquito and vector control district to ensure management of existing water bodies that may harbor vector species. 7. An educational program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the resort, open space, and low-density community programs through the use of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what threats this species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these threats. This includes information that explains: (1) why restrictions on toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged. 8. Ensure funding for implementation, enforcement, and effectiveness assessment of the above measures, for the life of the development, to help ensure protection of sheep and to prevent trespass from the Project site into adjacent sheep habitat. MM BIO -[XX]: With respect to defensible Timing: Prior Implementation: space and impacts to biological to final plan City of La Quinta. resources, the Project shall consult with the check, or Monitoring and Riverside County Fire Department and fully equivalent. Reporting: See describe and identify the location, acreage, Methods: See Mitigation and composition of defensible Mitigation Measure. space within the proposed Project footprint. Measure. Based on the consultation the Project shall be designed so that impacts associated with defensible space (fuel modification, fire breaks, etc.) shall not be transferred to adjacent open space or conservation lands. MM BIO -1: Burrowing owl Glear,Ge Timing: Prior Implementation: surveys shall be performed by a qualified to ground City of La Quinta. biologist, pre -approved by the California disturbance. Monitoring and Department of Fish and Wildlife, not mere Methods: See Reporting: See +hon 30 day prior to any site disturbance Mitigation Mitigation activities (grubbing, grading, and Genstri Gtion) Measure. Measure. A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site disturbance activities. If disturbance activities are expected to start during the burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys shall be completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre - construction survey shall be conducted following guidelines in the CDFW 2012, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. is determiRed CDFW). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and an area up to 50feet 150 meters outside the Project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged, and a 160 feet 200 -meter diameter buffer will be established during non -breeding season or a 250 foot 500 -meter diameter buffer during the breeding season. The buffer area will be staked and flagged. A list of avoidance and minimization measures such as, but not limited to, the use of hay bales, daily biological monitoring, and trail cameras shall be provided to CDFW for review prior to any ground disturbance. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow. For# the burrows +sfound to be unoccupied, the qualified biologist will coordinate with CDFW on the methods to make the burrows will be mage inaccessible to owls, and construction may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied and impacts to the owl(s) cannot be avoided, a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan will be developed and reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies prior to the relocation of owls. owls shall he releGaterd to orotonolc p m aRt aGGeoted Wildlife AgeRGY Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrow within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. If burrowing owls are observed with the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures for CDFW to review. MM BIO- 6: To ensure compliance with Timing: Prior Implementation: California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA to ground City of La Quinta. and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, disturbance Monitoring and vegetation removal and ground-disturbing and during Reporting: See activities shall be conducted outside the construction Mitigation general bird nesting season ( aR lord 15 activities. Measure. st 31). Any vegetation removal, three gh August Methods: See ground disturbance, and/or construction Mitigation Measure. activities that occur during the nesting season will require that all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist that is pre- approved by CDFW. Prior to commencement of clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys within 14 days and repeated 3 days prior to ground disturbing activities. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. The buffer may he modified and/er other renomrneRdationc proposed as determined appropriate by the hielegist to rninirnize irnpaGtc. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgment, or as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgement as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies to avoid Take of nesting birds. MM BIO -[XX]: To reduce noise -related Timing: During Implementation: impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain, the Project City of La Quinta. Project shall continue taking noise level construction Monitoring and measurements during both Project and post- Reporting: See construction and post -construction construction Mitigation operations to determine if noise levels operations. Measure. exceed thresholds outlined in the CEQA Methods: See document and inform if additional avoidance Mitigation Measure. and minimization measures are required. To protect wildlife using Coral Mountain, the noise threshold affecting this area shall be reduced to 75 dBA as determined appropriate in the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in CVMSHCP Section 4.5. If noise levels exceed this threshold, the Project shall make changes to their operations and/or adopt other minimization measures to reduce noise impacts below 75 dBA to minimize noise -related impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain. MM BIO -[XX]: To reduce nighttime artificial Timing: During Implementation: lighting -related impacts to wildlife using Project City of La Quinta. Coral Mountain, the Project shall continue construction Monitoring and taking lightning measurements during both and post- Reporting: See Project construction and post -construction construction Mitigation operations to determine impacts of operations. Measure. nighttime artificial lightning on Coral Methods: See Mountain and the wildlife it supports. To Mitigation Measure. protect wildlife using Coral Mountain, project construction and operations shall result in no to minimal glare (500 or less candela) to all areas of Coral Mountain. If light or glare impacts to Coral Mountain exceed this threshold, the Project shall make changes to their operations and/or adopt landscape shielding, dimming, lighting curfews or other appropriate measures that result in the Project causing minimal to no glare to all areas of Coral Mountain. Coral Mountain Resort DEIR Bighorn Institute <bi@bighorninstitute.org> Tue $!312021 12.33 PM To: consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov -cconsultingplanner@laquintaca.gov> 1 1 attachments (272 KB) Coral Mountain Resort DEIR comment letter -Bighorn Institute.pcif,' Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste, Attached is Bighorn Institute's comment letter on the Coral Mountain Resort DEIR. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Please confirm your receipt. Best, Jim James R. DeForge Executive Director/Research Biologist Bighorn Institute P.O. Box 262 Palm Desert, CA 92261 760-346-7334 www.highorninstitute.org B ghornInstitute f3tu'i�•ulecllu rbc: ic�,rsc:+ tollu++ i?] tlz� t:c�fi�l:ti,rrlri sJrc:a,]� 71rrz,u��Jr iest?ar-rir urrcl i1il'ili!(�I; I .A +rnrvP+nfi, August 3, 2021 Tux-Dxevp 0,g wiz,Weri Nicole Sauviat Criste HONORARY C{IAIRMAN Consulting Planner OF FUNDRAISING City of La Quinta III Memoriam Gerald 78-495 Calle Tampico 33ih P+esirl�nr i�11he t'nind Ford SrcrJes La Quinta, CA 92253 PRESIDENT EMERITUS Via Electronic Mail: consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov Lawrence Cone. ,M,D. Ernest 'M I-lalin Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste: Bob Ho-ward Charles NK Jenner, D.VM. We are providing comments for the Draft EIR for Coral Mountain Resort (SCH9 Richard C. McClung 20210203 10), as it pertains to the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis Alexandra J. 5heldan nelsonit). We are primarily concerned with the likelihood of bighorn sheep being attracted BOARD OF DIRECTORS to and accessing Coral Mountain Resort as a means of artificial food and water if this project Mike RhidnE is built. Dave Stockton" Bighorn Institute has documented 35 known urban-related Peninsular bighorn deaths on or Ercrurive 17m Pr•.ridoir near four La Quinta golf courses (Traditions, SilverRock, PGA West and The Quarry) and Roland $w'hatsl: D.V.'vl.° i k'e P+�eride++! Lake Cahuilla since 2412. These bighorn deaths are a result of the sheep being attracted Kent A. Roberts" down to the grass and water features (Le., artificial food and water sources). Despite the T,rusur•+- DEIR declaring the project location as non-habitat for bighorn sheep, there is a real potential Rand+ Broder' for attracting bighorn sheep from adjacent areas, particularly if and when the required La Quinta fence is constructed and the sheep are pushed hack into their natural habitat. As Stuart Barton. M.D. such, we strongly recommend this project be fenced prior to construction with fencing Danielle Carie NichoIas J. CoussouIls approved in the Recovery Plan for bighorn in the Peninsular Ranges (i.e., an 8 foot chain- Sylvia Zvi. Ender link fence). The City of Rancho Mirage had similar urban-related bighorn issues and in Robert N. Gehhart. M.D. 2002, a 4'/2 mile long, 8ft high chain-link fence was built there. It completely eliminated Judith L. Sanders' urban-related bighorn deaths and is promoting recovery of this species. We also F-crr— Ca+++acil recommend no vegetation be planted near the project fence to attract the sheep. ADMINISTRATION James H. DeForge Finally, we are concerned about the water usage for this project, particularly the wave pool ExtcwM.—' ❑i+rvipr and other water features. We are in the grips of another drought year so it seems Researeh Brah'gisr Aimee J. Byard irresponsible and unnecessary to build a project so focused on using such a valuable Assuchriv Dov rnr resource. Wildlife, such as Peninsular bighorn, struggle to have enough available water to sralag`''r survive during droughts and this project could contribute to the water shortage. ADVISORS Mark C. Jor¢ensen Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. .-lira-Borivgr. D sor Srarr Park Raul Valdez. Pli.D. Sincerely, Near Alasico Stare urrlre+air . J, Craig Williams, Esq. Legul Counsel i ,LYS, r sR. DeForge cutive Director Research Biologist P,O, Box. 262 • balm Desert, California 92261-0262 Tel (760) 346-7334 Frnaii BJ@BighornInstitute.oi wr���'.Bighnrnlnsiitute.arg Bighorn Institute January 22, 2024 Planning Commission clo Ms. Tania Flores City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Via Electronic Mail: TF]ores@LaWntaCA.gov Dear Members of the Planning Commission. We are providing comments for the proposed project The Club at Coral Mountain (SCH# 2021420310), as it pertains to the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis C'anadensis nelsoni). Our primary concern is the likelihood of bighorn sheep being attracted to and accessing The Club at Coral Mountain as a means of artificial food and water if this project is built. Bighorn Institute has documented 60 known urban -related Peninsular bighorn deaths on or near four La Quinta golf courses (Traditions, SilverRock, PGA West and The Quarry) and Lake Cahuilla since 2012. These bighorn deaths are a direct result of the sheep being attracted to the golf course grasses and water features (i.e., artificial food and water sources). Despite the DEIR declaring the project location as non -habitat for bighorn sheep, there is a real potential for attracting bighorn sheep from the adjacent areas they are known to frequent, particularly after the required La Quinta fence is completed and the sheep are pushed back into their natural habitat. As such, we strongly recommend this project be fenced in its entirety prior to construction with fencing approved in the Recovery Plan for bighorn in the Peninsular Ranges (i.e., an 8 foot chain-link fence). The City of Rancho Mirage had similar urban -related bighorn issues, however in 2002, a 4'/mile long, 8ft high chain-link fence was built there and as a result urban -related bighorn deaths have been completed eliminated and is promoting the recovery of this endangered species. We also recommend no vegetation be planted near the project fence to attract the sheep. !Finally, we are concerned about the water usage for this project. We continue to struggle with drought conditions so it seems irresponsible and unnecessary to build another project that wiH use an abundance of water. Wildtife, such as Peninsular bighorn, struggle to have enough available water to survive during droughts and this project could contribute to the water shortage. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. Sincerely, es R. DeForge Executive Director Research Biologist Tania Flores From: penny@bomgtwrks.com Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 8:43 AM To: Tania Flores Subject: Written Comments - Coral Mountain Application Support Importance: High You don't often get email from penny@bomgtwrks.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. To: Planning Commissioners City Manager City Attorney From: Penny Boehm Resident, City of La Quinta Our family continues to support the development of Coral Mountain. The applicant has proven to be committed to adhering to the existing General Plan guidelines, We urge your approval of this project and subsequent forwarding same to City Council. I hope these hearings are not a repeat of past hearings where several public members played fast and loose with honest input. HANDOUTS PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23. 2024 n C Good•evening Chairperson Nieto, Planning Commissioners, staff. I am going to address why I believe we cannot just accept EIR option 2 and will need to readdress the issue of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Developer has proposed that the existing DEIR for the Wave be accepted as is. We beg to differ for the following reasons: 1) The water assessment is significantly higher than the prior water assessment. However, CVWD normally calculates water assessment based on full buildout. what is not taken into consideration is that up to 750 STVRs are proposed by the Developer. When a review of a -normal residential project is carried out, as has been done by the City of La Quinta: - A one bedroom house is defined by occupancy by 2 - 4 people; a one bedroom STVR is 2 — 8 - A two bedroom house is defined by 4 — 6 occupants; a two bedroom SNR is 4 — 8 - 3 bedrooms is 6 — 8, STVR is 6 —12 - 4 bedroom is 8 —10, STVR is 8 —16 T Therefore it is abundantly clear that a new water assessment needs to be done to address the STVR water usage. Consistent with this information above regarding STVRs, is that there must be consideration for the number of vehicles that will come to the "up to 750 STVR" development. Obviously, there will be many more vehicles used per multi -resident STVR. Therefore, the vehicle miles driven or travelled is far greater, and these wil I most definitely impact green house gas emissions and the traffic studies. Let's no consider the special events proposed. That will bring more cars, buses, etc. Although we don't have final details, it is safe to assume that these will bring more cars, buses, etc. to the Development. Green house gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and traffic studies all need to be redone. Additionally, buses must not be idling along Madison, 58t1 or Goth for the special events, as these will pose safety risks for the proximal residential areas. Finally, there are three other points that must be considered: • 1) During phased construction, sand must not be piled up and left: in the Development. It must be removed to preserve esthetics, 2) The golf course must not be lit at night to preserve the dark skies, that La Quinta prides itself in. 3) The Developer is proposing that the project be cut up into 7 lots, for sale and financial reasons. We don't see how this guarantees preservation of the character of this area should multiple developers get their hands on the individual parcels. Thank you very much. Good evening Chairperson Nieto, planning Commission Members. My name is Sheila Warren, La-QWnta Resident. We would like to see some changes to the Draft Development Agreement that would promote a workable relationship between Coral Mountain and the neighboring communities around Coral Mountain. Additions to the Development Agreement include, but are not�necessarily limited to; the following and pending more information to come in.these deliberations. + - , - ,-1 The Developer must agree to the following: ij That there will never be any type of wave producing machinery of any kind, either retrofitter or introduced, into the proposed recreational lake 2) That no gasoline -powered boats, jet skis, etc. will ever be allowed in the proposed recreational lake 3) That there will be no golf course lighting at night, especially for special events. 4) That there will be no bus staging or idling for Special Events or to shuttle people -to any other recreational venue, along Madison, 58th and 60th. 4) That there will be no car parking along along Madison, 58th and -60 for special events 5) That there will be no Special Event staging on 60th. 6) Special events must be reviewed and approved by the.City, with special 11 considerations to mitigate effects on local residents. Good evening Chairperson Nieto, Planning Commissioners and. Staff. Thank _ you for your service to our community. My name is Lynne Marafino, La Quinta resident.. i wish -to address the following -provisions found within the proposed Specific Plan Amendment for,this new project, which is categorically inconsistent with the General Plan. The current and existing. Specific Plan 2003=037, Amendment No. 5 states that it is: Fr •. .r.. • . {' t 1) Compatible with zoning on surrounding properties, which also allows residential units and golf course uses,, and 2) Suitable and appropriate for the subject property, as development is consistent with the east.side-of the Specific Plan area -and will continueto build out as origi na lly,i ntended.! ,< - • -., .,,, I - - . The first comment I would like to make is that the date of the original Specific Plan 03-067 was -removed from the document that the Developer. has , included in the package. The date that SP 03-067 was approved was December 16, 2003, twenty one years ago. The South End of La Quinta looks far different now•then in 2003, when_SP.03- 067 was approved. What are some of the new developments? Coral Mountain by Alta Verde, Santa Rosa Trails, Pala Verde; Stone Creek,. Cantera, Santerra, Lion's Gate plus others that surround the Coral Mountain area. Therefore, it cannot be said that allowing 100%STVRs in the proposed project is compatible with the zoning of the surrounding properties. Trilogy was separated from SP 037. It does not allow STVRs. The east side of Andalusia does not allow STVRs. So you cannot say that the development is consistent with the east side of -the Specific Plan area. Yes, "first" and "former" SP 03-067 from 2003 does say STVRs is an allowable use. But no other proximal community is implementing STVRs, and certainly not 100% STVRs! If you recall on September 21, 2022, when the City Council denied the original Coral Mountain Pian, here were some the General Plan sections cited as to - why the project was denied: Goal LU -1: Land Use compatibility throughout the City Maintain consistency between the Land Use Map & Zoning Map Policy LU -1.2 All land use- declsions shall be Consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and programs and shall uphold the rights and needs of property owners as well as those of the general public GOAL LU -3 Safe and identifiable neighborhoods that provide a sense of place Policy LU -3.1 Encourage the preservation of neighborhood character and assure a consistent and compatible land use -pattern. LU 3.1 Apply the Citys discretionary power and site development review process consistently to assure that subdivision and development plans are compatible with existing residential areas Up to 750 STVRs is not compatible with,existing proximal residential areae. Thank you very much. To: Planning Commission = City of La Quinta From: Robert Lasser— Resident City of La Quints Re: Written Comments-- The Club at Coral Mountain Action requested: Denial of the Project as Presented January 23, 2014, Dear City Planners, , My name is Robert Lasser, arid l am a 96 -year resident of the City of La Quinta. I have read the 683 -page proposal for The Club at Coral Mountain project. l have concluded, based on the' information provided within the proposal, that the proposed project is NOT an upscale residential doff community development at all, but instead, is a tourist-orlented resort 1 entertainment/ recreational destination, to be comprised of 750 luxury Short.Term Vacation Rentals (STVR's) disguised as a residential golf community. The proposal suggests the following: A needed variance on how the City of La Quinta allows STVR's. Why would a typical golf residential community need °special considerations" regarding already established rules about STRV's7 ■ The plan presents Mutdoor Recreational" facilities yet does not elaborate specifically on the type of outdoor uses proposed. • The plan describes a 10 acre "Recreational" Lake but does not discuss what type of recreational activities will take place in, on, or around the Rake. Will outdoor lake activities include the use of speed boats, or other high noise producing boating activities? • The proposal mentions the need for moveable modular buildings to accommodate "events," staging facilities, and overflow parking lots to accommodate muitiday events, and recreational events. Are concerts or other entertainment venues planned? How much noise and traffic will they create for the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and how often? ■ What type of lighting will be needed to accommodate outdoor recreational events, concerts, and other entertainment venues? • What type of lighting will be needed to illuminate the 10 -acre lake? Will recreational activltles take place during evening hours? What type of sound system will be utilized and what will be the ,imp$ct on surrounding residential neighborhoods and how often? The project mentions the needed expansion of roadways leading to the site, along with proposals to add many additional traffic lights, increased Panes in round -a -bouts, longer collector lanes allowing a greater quantity of traffic to flow into the site. Why would all of these traffic mitigation measures be needed if this were just a typical upscale residential golf club community? The proposal on page 605 states that "noise levels will be identical to existing gated resort communities In the area". How can this be, and what specifically are the "resort" communities they are referring to? Based on the above information, this proposed community does not meet the requirements of the La Quinta 2035 General Plan and should not be approved as presented. This project is NOT a comparable upscale residential golf community. It is instead a 100% STVR entertainment tourist commercial complex that will host events attracting thousands of people to an otherwise quiet residential area. This prnject is not compatible with the surrounding quiet residential neighborhoods and should be rejected as presented. . , Thank you, Robert Lasser Golden Poppy Way La Quinta AS V, Chairperson Nieto, Vice Chairperson Hassett, Commissioners and Staff. My name is Alena Callimanis, La Quinta resident. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Any investor wanting to buy one million dollar plus homes as short term vacation rentals will want to be assured of their return on investment. we are in the middle of the desert where the summers can be brutal. We all know that Golf is probably a four letter word in the summer. You don't play afternoon golf in the desert. People won't be doing "wellness" activities outside. By the way, I took temperature checks at Spm at Coral Mountain in September and the heat that was radiated from the mountains made the air temperature over 125 degrees. 5o how are you going to ensure investors can have rental income during the summer? Obviously, it could be, as the Mayor had referred to the wave, putting a "cool project" like a wave park close by, as enticement. As you may or may not know, Tim Rogers, of Tower Markets and The Thermal Club, was I involved with the original Coral Mountain proposal. Mr. Rogers, through Tower Real Estate Holding and'Tower Energy Group, has over 250 acres of land along 62"d, roughly between 62nd and 611 and Jackson and Van Buren. It is over 250 acres of land. This property is in Thermal, therefore outside the current La Quinta sphere of influence. If this is chosen as a potential location for the Wave Park, Riverside County would be involved in any approval processes. That would help expedite the approval process. If this is a potential scenario, how could it impact today's documents you are looking to approve? Here a few ramifications: 1.Vehicle miles traveled "back and forth" would skyrocket, as STVR "guests" are shuttled back and forth. 2.Idling buses would significantly affect Green House Gases. 3. This would be an ideal venue to host a number of World Surf League competitions, other competitions and/or training at this site. 4. There could perhaps be a reciprocal golf and wave agreement for members of The Thermal Club to play Golf at Coral Mountain. 5.WSL 'parties" would be held at Coral Mountain after a day of surfing, since that is where the surfers and guests would be residing. All of the above, and perhaps just not limited to these, could potentially have significant impact on the residential areas around Coral Mountain. There is no question that this scenario must be on the mind of the developers, otherwise they would not still be looking to build 750 STVRs at Coral Mountain. It is understandable that they need to ensure Return on Investment to their investors over the summer. Additionally, it would address the Mayor's Dream of a surf park in the area, perhaps eventually in the La Quinta annexation. At a minimum, it will drive TOT revenue for the City. The impacts to the EIR, with full and complete disclosure of the Developer's plans for the site must be reevaluated and remodelled. Additionally, we must have assurance that this must take place in the event of sale of this property to a new Developer, as the Draft Developer Agreement allows for. I respectfully ask Chairperson Nieto or one of the Planning Commissioners to PLEASE ask the question about the Developer's intentions to align with other recreational outlets, such as a Surf Park, so you can determine if there are things that must be included in the approval process for Coral Mountain. Thank you very much.