07 Traffic Impact Study (1999)TRAFFIC
IMPACT STUDY
T
r
co
i
LL
CDw
co
Endo Engineering Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments
February 10, 1999
Mr. Ric Stephens
The AEI-CASC Companies
937 South Via Lata, Suite 500
Colton, CA 92324
SUBJECT: Coral Mountain Specific Plan No. 218
Amendment No. 1 - Traffic Impact Study
Dear Mr. Stephens;
Endo Engineering is pleased to submit this analysis of the circulation impacts associated
with the Coral Mountain Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment No. 1 in unincorporated
Riverside County, south and east of the City of La Quinta. Coral Mountain Specific Plan is
located on either side of Madison Street and Monroe Street, between Avenue 58 (to the
north) and Avenue 62 (to the south). The proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan includes
a maximum development of 3,500 dwelling units and 9.2 acres of commercial uses. It also
includes 6.8 acres of community facilities, 41 acres of parks and trails, two championship
golf courses with clubhouses and maintenance facilities and a 10 -acre school. The golf
courses will include recreational amenities such as swimming pools, tennis courts and
exercise facilities in a "country club" atmosphere. The previously approved Specific Plan
218 (previously named Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan) included the development of
4,262 homes, 35 acres of commercial uses, and 2 golf courses on-site
The study follows the format and methodology specified by Riverside County in their
November 1991 Traffic Impact Study Report Preparation Guide. It details in graphic and
narrative form: (1) existing circulation conditions; (2) conditions with and without the
project in the year 2004; (3) conditions with and without the project in the year 2010; and
(4) recommended mitigation measures. We trust that the information provided herein will
be of value to Riverside County staff in their review of the impacts and conditions of
approval associated with the project. Should questions or comments develop regarding the
findings and recommendations within this report, please do not hesitate to contact our
offices at (949) 362-0020.
Cordially,
ENDO ENGINEERING
4� X.0 _,&�
�a RRpFESSl0,y�l
L E E
TR 1161
Vicki Lee Endo 4Kla /3 r /2ooZ
Registered Professional
Traffic Engineer TR 1161
S. TRAFF\�, �4
�7f OF CAOd��
28811 Woodcock Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-13
(949) 362-0020 FAX: (949) 362-0015
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
CORAL MOUNTAIN AT LA QUINTA
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218
AMENDMENT No. 1
NORTH OF AVENUE 62 AND SOUTH OF AVENUE 58
ON EITHER SIDE OF MADISON ST. AND MONROE ST.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
February 10, 1999
Prepared For:
AEI CASC COMPANIES
937 South Via Lata, Suite 500
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 783-0101
Prepared By:
ENDO ENGINEERING
28811 Woodcock Drive
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
(949) 362-0020
Table of Contents
Section Title Page I
I
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................................
I-1
A. Purpose and Objectives
B. Executive Summary
II
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......................................
II -1
A. Summary of Development
III
AREA CONDITIONS .................................................
III -1
A. Study Area
B. Study Area Land Use
C. Site Accessibility
IV
PROJECTED TRAFFIC ...............................................
IV -1
A. Site Traffic
B. Through Traffic
C. Total Traffic
V
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ................................................
V-1
A. Site Access
B. Capacity and Level of Service and Improvement Analysis
VI
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .......... .......................
VI -1
A. Site Accessibility
B. Traffic Impacts
C. Off -Site Improvements Needed
D. Compliance with General Plan Circulation Policies
VII
RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................
VII -1
A. Site Access/Circulation Plan
B. Roadway Improvements
C. Transportation System Management Actions
D. Other
APPENDICES
1. Peak Hour Traffic Count Data
2. 1994 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Methodology and Worksheets
3. Traffic Signal Warrants and Worksheets
4. 1994 HCM Signalized Intersection Methodology and Worksheets
5. Consistency With General Plan Circulation Policies
I
List of Figures
Number Title Following Page
II -1 Site Location............................................................ II -1
II -2 Site Development Plan ................................................ II -1
III -1 Existing Transportation System ...................................... III -1
III -2
Approved Cumulative Non -Site Development .....................
III -2
III -3
Anticipated Transportation System (County of Riverside) ........
III -3
III -4
Typical Street Cross -Sections (County of Riverside) ......... .
... III -3
III -5
Current Daily Traffic Volumes (Peak Season) .....................
III -4
III -6
1999 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Peak Season) ... . ..............
III -4
IV -1
Directional Distribution of Daily
VI -3
VI -3
Site Traffic (Year 2004) ........ .......................................
IV -4
IV -2
Directional Distribution of Peak Hour
Site Traffic (Year 2004) ...............................................
IV -4
IV -3
Peak Hour Site Traffic Volumes (Year 2004) ......................
IV -4
IV -4 Directional Distribution of Daily
Site Traffic (Year 2010) ............................................... IV -4
IV -5 Directional Distribution of Peak Hour
Site Traffic (Year 2010) ............................................... IV -4
IV -6 Peak Hour Site Traffic Volumes (Year 2010) ....................... IV -4
IV -7
Estimated Peak Hour Non -Site Traffic (Year 2004) ...............
IV -7
IV -8
Estimated Peak Hour Non -Site Traffic (Year 20 10) ..............
IV -7
IV -9
Estimated Peak Hour Total Future Traffic (Year 2004)
.......... IV -8
IV -10
Estimated Peak Hour Total Future Traffic (Year 2010)
.......... IV -8
VI -1
Existing Lane Geometrics.............................................
VI -3
VI -2
Required Year 2004 Lane Geometrics ...............................
VI -3
VI -3
Required Year 2010 Lane Geometrics ...............................
VI -3
List of Tables
I Number Title Page I
II -1
Coral Mountain Land Use By Village ........................... . . „ . II -2
II -2
Approved Versus Proposed On -Site Land Uses
.................., . II -3
III -1
Approved Cumulative Non -Site Developments
................. . . III -3
III -2
Circulation Plan Comparison ........................................
III -4
IV -1
Estimated Site Traffic Generation ...................................
IV -2
IV -2 Adjusted Trip Generation Forecast -Coral Mountain S.P......... IV -3
IV -3 Estimated Trip Generation
For Non -Site Cumulative Development ............................ IV -5
IV -4 Daily Traffic Volumes by Scenario .................................. IV -6
V-1 Existing Unsignalized Intersection
Peak Hour Delay and LOS Summary .............................. V-3
V-2 Year 2004 Unsignalized Intersection
Peak Hour Delay and LOS Summary .............................. V-6
V-3 Year 2004 Signalized Intersection
Peak Hour Delay and LOS Summary ........................... . .. V-8
V-4 Year 2010 Unsignalized Intersection
Peak Hour Delay and LOS Summary .. . .............. . V-12
V-5 Year 2010 Signalized Intersection
Peak Hour Delay and LOS Summary ............................... V-13
V-6 Projected Level of Service Summary ............................... V-17
VI -1 Traffic Signal Warrants Summary ........... . ....................... VI -2
iii
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
I. A PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this report is to provide in graphic and narrative form: (1) existing roadway
and traffic conditions; (2) probable traffic changes related to the proposed project; and (3)
mitigation measures required to meet County minimum level of service requirements and
traffic engineering design standards.
The scope of the study complies with Riverside County specifications as set forth in the
November 1991 Traffic Impact Study Report Preparation Guide developed by the
Transportation Planning and Development Review Division. The analysis herein employs
the 1994 update to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to analyze levels of service via
the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) package prepared under FHWA sponsorship and
maintained by the McTrans Center at the University of Florida Transportation Research
Center.
I. B EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Site Location and Study Area
The project site is located on either side of Madison Street and Monroe Street, between
Avenue 58 (to the north) and Avenue 62 (to the south), within unincorporated Riverside
County. Twenty-one key intersections were analyzed including:
Jefferson Street @
- Avenue 50
- Avenue 52
- Avenue 54
Madison Street @
- Avenue 50
- Avenue 52
- Avenue 54
- Airport Boulevard
- Avenue 58
- Resort Village Access
- Avenue 60
Development Description
Monroe Street @
- Avenue 50
- Avenue 52
- Avenue 54
- Airport Boulevard
- Avenue 58
- Avenue 60
- N. Primary Housing Access
- S. Primary Housing Access
- Active Adult Village Access
- Avenue 62
Active Adult Village Access
- Avenue 60
The proposed project is the Coral Mountain Specific Plan 218 Amendment No. 1, an
amendment to the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 218 approved in 1988 (see Figure II -2).
It includes a maximum development of 3,500 dwelling units and 9.2 acres of commercial
uses. It also includes 6.8 acres of community facilities, 41 acres of parks and trails, two
championship golf courses with clubhouses and maintenance facilities and a 10 -acre
school. The previously approved Specific Plan 218 included the development of 4,262
homes, 35 acres of commercial uses, and 2 golf courses on-site.
I-1
Principal Findings
The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan circulation policies require a minimum
Level of Service "C", except that a Level of Service "D" could be allowed with Board of
Supervisors' approval in urban areas only at intersections of any combination of major
street, arterials, expressways, or conventional State Highways within one mile of a
freeway interchange and also at freeway ramp intersections. Level of Service "D" would
only be allowed in those instances where mitigation to Level of Service "C" is deemed
impractical.
Existing Conditions
Thirteen of the fourteen unsignalized key intersections are currently operating at level of
service (LOS) C or better during both morning and evening peak hours. The intersection
of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 provides LOS F operation during the morning peak hour
and LOS C during the evening peak hour. This intersection appears to currently warrant
signalization. Once a traffic signal is installed, the peak hour LOS will be acceptable at this
intersection.
Year 2004 Conditions
All of the key intersections will provide acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) in the
year 2004 with or without site traffic. The peak hour level of service will drop at six of the
key intersections, once site traffic is added to the street system.
Year 2010 Conditions
All of the key intersections will provide acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) in the
year 2010 with or without site traffic. The peak hour level of service will drop at six of the
key intersections, once site traffic is added to the street system.
Conclusions
All of the key intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (except the
intersection of Jefferson Street @ Avenue 50). With development of the initial phase of the
proposed project and 45 percent of the cumulative projects, ten key intersections in the
project vicinity would require signalization by the year 2004. Upon project build -out (year
2010), eighteen of the twenty-one key intersections will require signalization, as shown in
Table VI -1.
As shown in Figure VI -2, almost all of the roadways in the study area (except in the
vicinity of Jefferson Street near Avenue 50 and Avenue 52) will provide adequate levels of
service as two-lane facilities. Upon project buildout, Madison Street will need to be
extended as a four -lane facility through the study area. Monroe Street will require
widening to a 4 -lane facility from a point south of Avenue 54 to a point north of Avenue 50
to provide adequate levels of service in the year 2010. In addition, Avenue 50, Avenue 52,
and Avenue 54 will require improvements to their master planned cross-sections in the
vicinity of Madison Street and Jefferson Street by the year 2010 (as shown in Figure VI -3).
I-2
Recommendations
Areawide improvements to the circulation network will be required with or without the
project to accommodate year 2004 and year 2010 peak hour traffic demands, as discussed
in Sections VI.0 and VII.B. The following mitigation measures are recommended to
reduce potential circulation impacts associated with the proposed project and site access.
1. Specific design standards for internal streets shall be consistent with County street
requirements for residential loop streets and residential cul-de-sacs.
2. The proposed internal circulation layout shall be subject to the review and approval
of the County Transportation Department during the development review process to
insure compliance with County minimum access and design standards.
3. Intersection spacing on-site shall comply with County of Riverside standards.
4. All internal streets shall be fully constructed to their master planned cross-section as
adjacent on-site development occurs.
5. Sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed on-site as specified by the County.
6. Clear, unobstructed sight distance shall be provided at all internal street
intersections on-site.
7. The project proponent shall provide (at a minimum) the lane geometrics shown in
Figures VI -2 and VI -3 at the site access locations in conjunction with adjacent
development.
8. The project proponent shall install a traffic signal when warranted at the intersection
of: (1) the Resort Village access @ Madison Street, (2) the Active Adult Village @
Avenue 60, and (3) the north Primary Housing Village access @ Monroe Street.
9. The project proponent shall apply for an amendment of the Riverside County
Circulation Element to redesignate portions of Madison Street and Avenue 60 to be
consistent with the roadway widths shown in the Specific Plan. t In addition, the
proposed transition between Madison Street and Avenue 60 will impact the access
for the parcels located at the existing intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 60.
Although most of these roadways lie within the Coral. Mountain Specific Plan area,
the rights-of-way of these roadways extends across parcels that are not part of the
project site.
10. The project proponent shall participate in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) Program and the County Traffic Signal Mitigation Program in an effort to
make their "fair -share" contribution to future roadway improvements within the
project vicinity.
1. Although the Coral Mountain Specific Plan shows Avenue 62 as a Secondary Highway, a two-lane
cross-section appears to be adequate to serve year 2010 total traffic volumes (6,420 ADT). Since this
link is not on the Riverside County Circulation Element, the project proponent should consider revising,
the Specific Plan to show Avenue 62 as a Collector Street adjacent to the project site.
I-3
II. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
II. A SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT
Project Location
The project site is located in unincorporated Riverside County, in the Coachella Valley,
south and east of the City of La Quinta. Regional access is provided by Interstate 10 and
State Route 111. The project site is located partially within the Sphere of Influence of the
City of La Quinta.
The Coral Mountain Specific Plan area includes approximately 1,280 acres within
unincorporated Riverside County, on either side of Madison Street and Monroe Street,
between Avenue 58 (to the north) and Avenue 62 (to the south). The northern and western
site boundaries abut the City of La Quinta. Figure H-1 depicts the location of the project
site, the study area and the key intersections analyzed herein.
Figure II -1 illustrates the study area and the 21 key intersections evaluated. The key
intersections include:
Jefferson Street @
- Avenue 50
- Avenue 52
- Avenue 54
Madison Street @
- Avenue 50
- Avenue 52
- Avenue 54
- Airport Boulevard
- Avenue 58
- Resort Village Access
- Avenue 60
Project Land Use and Circulation Plan
Monroe Street @
- Avenue 50
- Avenue 52
- Avenue 54
- Airport Boulevard
- Avenue 58
- Avenue 60
- N. Primary Housing Access
- S. Primary Housing Access
- Active Adult Village Access
- Avenue 62
Active Adult Village Access
- Avenue 60
The proposed project is the Coral Mountain Specific Plan 218 Amendment No. 1, an
amendment to the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 218 approved in 1988 (see Figure II -2).
It includes a maximum development of 3,500 dwelling units and 9.2 acres of commercial
uses. It also includes 6.8 acres of community facilities, 41 acres of parks and trails, two
championship golf courses with clubhouses and maintenance facilities and a 10 -acre
school. The golf courses will include recreational amenities such as swimming pools,
tennis courts and exercise facilities in a "country club" atmosphere. Table II -1 details the
land uses proposed on-site by community.
The previously approved Specific Plan 218 included the development of 4,262 homes, 35
acres of commercial uses, and 2 golf courses on-site, as shown in Table II -2. The
currently proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan Amendment Number 1 represents a
substantial reduction in residential (18%) and commercial (74%) development intensity.
The currently proposed project includes a maximum development of 762 fewer dwellings
and 25.8 fewer acres of commercial uses.
Figure II -1
' Site Location
U
CO
0
E2
o
CD
0
Avenue
1 4
9
50
C
0
c0
Avenue
2 5
10
52
Avenue
3 6
11
54
rs
7
Cil
Q
a 7
Airport
12
Blvd.
Lake
Cahuilla
Avenue
$
13
58
I—
•t5
_.1,6
78
Avenue
60
120
Avenue
21
62
Legend
= Project Site
• Key Intersection
8 Reference Number
indo Engineering
Scale: 1 " = 5660'
v
a)
co
C n
C W ai
N 4�UJ
ag
a M°a! °V >
CD ° v
CD > > = Q
CD
C r
c UJ z
U) g 05; 0 ,
x� �ILI�
I � r
k
t
d e�
=� 1)Cc cc:
�
i Z D °o °o 0
c� co grow
r a. -j co
W gg y
�> �L) aci
a co �E
c
a�
E
m
(ti N
(D is sn vi
D
.o
�a:._ U cCG
t ai li E
LmCr-Q) _� U
_rn
> >=�0 E
X U
-
a a
a�
T-=2DUL
>�C7U o
U)
Table II -1
Proposed Coral Mountain
Land Uses By Planning Area
Land Use Type
Acres
Dwelling Units
Resort Village
Single Family Residential
274.1
782
Golf Course
182.0
--
- Clubhouse (10,000 S.F.)
- Maintenance (4,000 S.F.)
Community Facilities (10,000 S.F.)
6.8
--
Arroyo Trail System
28.7
--
R.O.W./Easements
45.8
--
Subtotal
537.4
782
Active Adult Village
Single Family Residential
285.0
1,375
Golf Course
188.8
--
- Clubhouse (10,000 S.F.)
- Maintenance (4,0000 S.F.)
R.O.W./Easements
52.9
--
Subtotal
526.7
1,375
Primary Housing Village
Residential
- Single Family
142.8
779
- Multi -Family
17.1
397
Park
8.0
--
School (80,000S.F.)
10.0
--
R.O.W.
12.1
--
Subtotal
190.0
1,176
Village Commons
Multi -Family Residential
12.0
167
Commercial/Retail (100,000 S.F.)
9.2
--
Recreation Facilities/Park
4.0
--
Subtotal
25.2
1279.3
167
Total
3,500
The proposed project consists of three master planned communities with a variety of
housing products and densities designed for specific lifestyles. Links will be provided
between the community parks and existing trails along the Westside Flood Levy (which
traverses the western boundary of the site). Links on-site will also be provided as shown
in the ECVP Coachella Valley Trails Plan.
II -2
Table II -2
Approved Versus Proposed
On -Site Land Uses
Land Use Type
Approved Rancho La Quinta
Specific Plan 218
Proposed Coral Mountain
SP 218 Amendment No. l
Residential
- Single Family
4,262 Dwellings
2,936 Dwellings
- Multi -Family
--
564 Dwellings
Total
4,262 Dwellings
3,500 Dwellings
Commercial/Retail
35 Acres
9.2 Acres
Community Facilities
--
6.8 Acres
Golf Courses (2)
380 Acres
371 Acres
Parks/Trails
40 Acres
41 Acres
School
--
10 Acres
The proposed circulation system for Coral Mountain includes improvements to Riverside
County Circulation Element standards along Madison Street, Monroe Street, Avenue 58,
Avenue 60 and Avenue 62. These roads will be dedicated to and maintained by Riverside
County. The internal loop collector system proposed to serve the residential and
recreational areas on-site will consist primarily of private streets. A grade separated
pedestrian crossing is proposed across Madison Street, just north of 60th Avenue.
Madison Street, Monroe Street, and Avenue 60 will be improved to arterial standards with
86 feet of pavement within 110 -foot rights-of-way. Avenue 58 (west of Madison Street)
will be improved to major standards (76 feet of pavement with an 100 -foot right-of-way).
Avenue 62 (west of Monroe Street) will be improved to secondary standards (64 feet of
pavement with an 88 -foot right-of-way).
A variety of intersection improvements will be provided in conjunction with Specific Plan
implementation. Traffic signals will be installed at the intersections of Monroe Street with
Avenue 58 and Avenue 60. The legs of the intersection of Monroe Street and Avenue 58
will all be widened to provide two lanes in each direction.
Zoning and Land Use Category
The proposed project is generally consistent with the current General Plan and Zoning
designations on-site. The proposed project is the Coral Mountain Specific Plan 218
Amendment No. 1, an amendment to the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 218 approved in
1988. The currently proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 represents
a substantial reduction in residential (18%) and commercial (74%) development intensity.
The currently proposed project includes a maximum development of 762 fewer dwellings
and 25.8 fewer acres of commercial uses.
II -3
Project Phasing
The project will be constructed in five phases. The initial phase will include the golf course
construction and some of the adjacent residential planning areas. The remaining phases
will include primarily residential and commercial development.
The initial development phase will begin grading in the year 2000 and be completed by the
year 2004. It will include 873 single family dwellings and two golf courses with a total of
36 holes. Ultimate development of the site could occur by the year 2010.
II -4
III. AREA CONDITIONS
III. A STUDY AREA
The study area was developed through coordination with County of Riverside staff. As
shown in Figure 111-1, it includes the following 21 key intersections:
Jefferson Street @
- Avenue 50
- Avenue 52
- Avenue 54
Madison Street @
- Avenue 50
- Avenue 52
- Avenue 54
- Airport Boulevard
- Avenue 58
- Resort Village Access
- Avenue 60
Avenue 60 @
- Active Adult Village Access
Monroe Street @
- Avenue 50
- Avenue 52
- Avenue 54
- Airport Boulevard
- Avenue 58
- Avenue 60
- N. Primary Housing Access
- S. Primary Housing Access
- Active Adult Village Access
- Avenue 62
Only fourteen of these key intersections exist today (see Figure II -1, for the intersections
numbered 1-14). Six key intersections will not exist in the future without on-site
development (refer to Figure II -1 for intersections numbered 15-20). It should be noted
that the proposed project includes a realignment of the intersection of Madison Street and
Avenue 60 on-site to replace the existing "dog leg" with a gentle curve. A connection
between Madison Street and Avenue 60 (west of Madison Street) will be maintained via a
new tee intersection on-site (see intersection 16 on Figure H-1).
Figure III -1 illustrates the existing transportation system within the study area. As shown
therein, Madison Street does not currently extend southerly of Avenue 60 and Avenue 60
does not extend west of Madison Street. Madison Street and Avenue 60 meet and form a
"dog leg" rather than an intersection. Similarly, intersection number 21 is currently a "dog
leg" where Avenue 62 meets Madison Street. Avenue 62 is currently an unpaved road west
of Monroe Street that carries so little traffic it functions more like a driveway than a street.
Monroe Street does not currently extend south of Avenue 62.
III. B STUDY AREA LAND USE
The site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Riverside County and is included
within the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area. It is also partially located
within the Sphere of Influence of the City of La Quinta. The City of La Quinta boundary
borders the project site on the north and west.
The majority of the project site is currently used for agricultural purposes or consists of
fallow fields. Approximately 250 acres on-site include native vegetation.
Figure III -1
Existing Transportation System
CO
CU)
E2 o
o
2U
21J
2U 2U 2U
2U
Avenue
50
2U co 2U
4U
2U
3D 31) M 2U
2U
Avenue
3 U
52
2U
2U
3U 3D 2U
&I
2U
Avenue
54
4D
-0 3D
2U
m
0 .I 20
2U
Airport
Blvd.
Lake
Cahurlfa 2U
2U
2U 2U2U
Avenue
:
58
2U�'!
2U
--II
2U
�2U
41,
Avenue
I!
60
`"""L2U
U
Avenue
62
Legend
Number of Through Lanes
D = Divided U = Undivided
STOP Sign
❑ Three or Four -Way Stop
� Endo Engineering
Scale: 1 " = 5660'
Land adjacent to the site is primarily used for agricultural purposes. A residential/recrea-
tional development (PGA West Specific Plan) is located to the northwest, within the City of
La Quinta. As shown in Figure III -2, eight approved Specific Plans are located within the
study area. These include: the Travertine and Green Specific Plans (to the west), the Vista
Santa Rosa Specific Plan and Specific Plan 015, 016 and 017 (to the north). In addition
The Ranch Specific Plan (formerly Oak Tree West) is located in the northwest portion of
the study area and The Quarry project is located south of Lake Cahuilla.
Table III -1 provides land use information for the approved cumulative non -site
developments within the study area. As shown therein, approved non -site developments
will include the future development of 2,100 hotel rooms, 530,000 square feet of
commercial building area, and 5,827 new homes. The approved non -site residential uses
include 774 multi -family dwellings and 5,053 single family dwellings.
III. C SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Area Roadway System
Regional access is currently provided by Interstate 10 and State Highway 111. Although
Jefferson Street and Monroe Street provide the most direct access to these regional
transportation facilities, the future connection of Madison Street (north of Avenue 54) will
facilitate regional access.
Figure III -1 depicts the existing transportation system in the study area. Traffic control
devices and mid -block lane geometrics are shown based upon a field survey made in May
of 1998.
Figure III -3 depicts the future transportation system in the project vicinity, based upon the
Circulation Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Figure III -4
provides typical street cross-sections for master planned roadways in Riverside County,
including right-of-way requirements.
Madison Street is shown in the Riverside County Circulation Element as an Urban Arterial
Highway, north of 60th Avenue, with a 134 -foot right-of-way and a 110 -foot roadbed.
Monroe Street is shown as an Arterial Highway, north of 62nd Avenue, with a 110 -foot
right-of-way and a 86 -foot roadbed. Avenue 60 is shown as a Secondary Highway
(between Madison Street and Monroe Street) and as an Arterial Highway (east of Monroe
Street). Secondary Highways typically have an 88 -foot right-of-way and a 64 -foot
roadbed. Avenue 58 is shown as a Major Highway with a 100 -foot right-of-way and 76
feet curb -to -curb. Avenue 62, adjacent to the project site, is not shown in the Circulation
Element as a master planned street. Similarly, Madison Street, south of Avenue 60, is not
shown in the Riverside County Circulation Element.
The Coral Mountain Specific Plan Circulation Plan differs from the Riverside County
Circulation Element is several respects. Table III -2 includes the roadway classifications of
Riverside County and the proposed project to facilitate a comparison. As shown therein,
the proposed project includes a smaller right-of-way and cross-section for Madison Street
on-site that is consistent with the City of La Quinta classification (north of Avenue 58) of
Primary Arterial (110 -foot right-of-way). The realignment of Madison Street proposed on-
site carries the 110 -foot right-of-way through to Avenue 60. This change upgrades Avenue
60 on-site from the Secondary Highway cross-section shown by Riverside County to a
consistent Arterial Highway cross-section.
I11-2
Figure III -2
Cumulative Development
The RanchSf� 616
Specific Plan PTI,.iu- 1
41 -MA S,entg
f34sa
SAeciflc Plast .
The Quarry --�
Green
peclfic-Plan j
i�ndo Engineering
Avenue
50
Avenue
52
Avenue
54
Airport
Blvd.
Avenue
58
r
— Avenue
Coral.MQun'tajh 60
,� :Specific Plan.. i
Avenue
62
Scale: 1 " = ;
C
0
o
C
The RanchSf� 616
Specific Plan PTI,.iu- 1
41 -MA S,entg
f34sa
SAeciflc Plast .
The Quarry --�
Green
peclfic-Plan j
i�ndo Engineering
Avenue
50
Avenue
52
Avenue
54
Airport
Blvd.
Avenue
58
r
— Avenue
Coral.MQun'tajh 60
,� :Specific Plan.. i
Avenue
62
Scale: 1 " = ;
Table III -1
Approved Cumulative Non -Site Developments
Development/Land Use Type
Hotel
Dwelling
Bldg. Area
Rooms
Units
(Square Feet)
The Ranch Specific Plan
Commercial/Retail
--
--
120,000
Hotel
600
--
--
Subtotal
600
120,000
PGA West Specific Plan
Single Family Residential
--
400
--
Hotel
1,000
--
--
Commercial/Retail
--
--
100,000
Subtotal
1,000
400
100,000
Foster Turf (SP 015)
Single Family Residential
--
200
The Grove (SP 016)
Single Family Residential
-
820
--
Commercial/Retail
--
--
210,000
Subtotal
820
210000
PGA Weiskopf (SP 017)
Single Family Residential
--
400
--
Vista Santa Rosa Specific Plan
Single Family Residential
--
850
The Quarry
Single Family Residential
--
580
--
Green Specific Plan
Single Family Residential
--
277
--
Travertine Specific Plan
Single Family Residential
--
1,526
--
Multiple Family Residential
--
774
--
Hotel
500
--
--
Commercial/Retail
--
--
100,000
Subtotal
500
2,300
100,000
Total
2,100
5,827
530,000
III -3
I ARrow
"TCN
Yn au
L s
rar+egp CITY OF
�!r
LA OwNU
r
"-a
N
1
1 1•
u
f
Figure III -3
Anticipated Transportation System
Avt
1 I �(County of Riverside)
CITY ! OF CI
e
s
a I
taN><
r x-71
NORTH
�ly,R
0 5,000 10,000 -k
I
O4IN1
ANJMTNi
MNAN
NNL
r
TMS YAP MMS ADOPTED ItARCH 6, 1084 6Y TME MMIYERS0E COLKTY BOARD
OF $IPFRYISORS THROUGH wsow m tIO. 84-77 AS A PMT OF THE PUBLIC
LECEW
RCUM AND !@IYfCES ELEMM OF TME
CONIVORF]NSIJE G11349tAL PLAK
TNTRr.L
6'
YRl�T
C
t
DATE. RElDU7r10N DATE
SECONDARY
r
96
100•
— �—----------
M - 452 12.11+1 M •.NS
.a.
TMS YAP MMS ADOPTED ItARCH 6, 1084 6Y TME MMIYERS0E COLKTY BOARD
OF $IPFRYISORS THROUGH wsow m tIO. 84-77 AS A PMT OF THE PUBLIC
LECEW
RCUM AND !@IYfCES ELEMM OF TME
CONIVORF]NSIJE G11349tAL PLAK
CLASUPWATNr
NNMT or rT
RLWLIlllON DATE RESOLLnION
DATE. RElDU7r10N DATE
SECONDARY
M
100•
M - 452 12.11+1 M •.NS
10. 6.96 4064M71:_rr♦4
MAJOR
M • 5V 12. 8.44 96-µ5
12•lla6 * WUS I�1S•�f
ARTERIAL
ARTERIAL
110
NN�ONN�U
86 291 &39416 96.636
11.21.69 66.•071
ARTERIAL
110*
96.3{2 10-29-+6 so • 61 s
12-1949 00-117 N -Tr -00
URSAN ARTERIAL
134*
00000"
96.750 12.3146 r -ss
12-1040 tt-i7-24
ENPRCSSYAY
WIAI LE
■WUMM-H
317 7.15-M 10111 -11,21110111 -11,211S
-S -M n#► "-WW
FREEWAY
'tel;
�.
r-4 10-2140 M-606
6 01 -4.
17'134 &12-47 72 - 1E6
wjll
VECsr1C FLAN ROAD
VAI0IMU
U
67.396 12-22-87 0144122
M-iM
UIO6E
r - 179 6-14+6 944W
9E -n-04
sLERE OF INFLUENCE
1110r^..w bod, '
'71LRCATES AWN30IR PO TILS LAI
VMTE 0 MKRAL LANDS
OR C71CUlATI 11 WI6 At A MMIC 1 rTITlII
1E11N.F. 10 TIE +IIIIIIIIIIL11 LOCATION
AM CLASS 'CATION OF EXOTIC AM IROP00m TMONOM
IES r IM COMITY. ANT 0UEFMM
ORiAROENC PONKM ALIT OR 11109KRI INT STArINAM /IOILD M AN SUNNI TO TWE
COUNTY TRAMTpRrAFAM SIEriATNNIIT.
/
cu
f ƒ
CL
�
0
CL$ca
�
C/) 2
0
e
v
@
U)
g
O 2 c
a) U / ƒf ------
)
�m
E �
/
k
e
k
@
£
f /
a bol
ƒ �
.S
/
W
�
�
�
�
2 CV) §
_
� k
e _ $ � / I $ $ $
�
�
� £� § / � �
e @ k
_
� �
� \ � � & % 6 ƒ § �
$ 3
/ ` % k % k % � � �
@�
e
A ƒ § � � k � � k 7
§ �.�� �
c
.0 ,
%
2 a
� � / � \
_ ,
� I � = a
o � � /
a � � a
� t = � E 2
k \ \ � ƒ f / f Cl)
�
®
'
%
/
3
=
2
\
\
k
§
I
ƒ
7
/
u
/
cu
f ƒ
CL
�
0
CL$ca
�
C/) 2
0
e
v
@
U)
g
O 2 c
a) U / ƒf ------
)
�m
E �
/
k
e
k
@
£
f /
a bol
ƒ �
.S
/
W
�
�
�
�
2 CV) §
_
� k
e _ $ � / I $ $ $
�
�
� £� § / � �
e @ k
_
� �
� \ � � & % 6 ƒ § �
$ 3
/ ` % k % k % � � �
@�
e
A ƒ § � � k � � k 7
§ �.�� �
c
.0 ,
%
2 a
� � / � \
_ ,
� I � = a
o � � /
a � � a
� t = � E 2
k \ \ � ƒ f / f Cl)
Table III -2
Circulation Plan Comparison
Roadway Link
Riverside County
Classification
Proposed Coral Mountain
Classification
Madison Street
- N/O Avenue 60
Urban Arterial
Arterial Highway
- S/O Avenue 60
Not Shown
Collectora
Monroe Street
- N/O Avenue 62
Arterial Highway
Arterial Highway
Avenue 58
- W/O Madison Street
Major Highway
Major Highway
Avenue 60
- E/O Monroe Street
Arterial Highway
Arterial Highway
- W/O Monroe Street
Secondary Highway
Arterial Highway
Avenue 62
- W/O Monroe Street
Not Shown
Secondary Highway
a. This classification was designed to match the City of La Quinta 60 -foot right-of-way.
Traffic Volumes
To analyze the peak hour conditions at the fourteen existing key intersections, morning and
evening peak hour traffic counts were made in May of 1998 at the key intersections by
Counts Unlimited, Inc. These manual traffic counts were made between 7:00 AM and 9:00
AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM.
The turning movement count data from the morning and evening peak hours at the key
intersections is included in Appendix 1. Figure A-1 in Appendix 1 illustrates the location
of the traffic counts. Figure A-2 in Appendix 1 illustrates the May 1998 turning
movements during the morning and evening peak hours.
Figure I1I-5 depicts the current peak season daily traffic volumes on roadway links in the
study area. The daily volumes shown therein include 24-hour counts collected by CVAG
in 1997 and estimated 1999 daily volumes. The 1999 volume estimates were derived from
the 1998 evening peak hour traffic counts at the key intersections by assuming that 8.5% of
the daily traffic currently occurs during the evening peak hour.l A 13 percent adjustment
was incorporated in these estimates, since the peak hour counts were made in May of 1998
rather than the peak season (February or March) of 1999.
This assumption was verified through coordination with the Riverside County Transportation
Department.
III -4
Figure III -5
Current Daily Traffic Volumes
U
�—
EeM oQ
C
Avenue
(6300) 5892 5149 5285 50
CO gn( ti
C�
Avenue
7385 4625 5329 4310 52
0
o 'o
Avenue
(200) 244 (1100) 92.2 54
o
C)
00
N N
Q
a v Airport
520 1794 Blvd.
Lake co a
N o
E Cial ufflaN
� N
Avenue
(400) (800) (1100) 58
tv
o
N r
Avenue
(200) (300) 60
0
0
T
1100 Avenue
62
Legend
2443 1997 Peak Season 24- Hour
CVAG Count
(7500) Estimated 1999 Peak Season
Daily Volume
��ndoin neer
Eng i • " - '
Engineering Scale. 1 - 5660
FFF
U
'�1/8
'L0/0
'�0/0
�
�
~53/60
�
°25/20
�
o
T'
F0/0
�
�
N
�',`3/4
cv � o
,`0/0
� �
y ?
o
40/18
8/5�
Z
38/60J�'
Q c
93/29-►
� Q
38/621
0/01
� `�' 0
00 ¢
U .-.
�
� 0/0�
�
T 4/5�.
�
A
' `
T
C\j—
ca
'L3/3
®
'L1/3
�
'�0/0
�
'a^
L VJ
Cl)
�F23/32
128/24
� �
N N
.76/99
�,
L'
r N o
,`2/9
� m
�
o 0 0
F0/
005
�a.
= ai
LL
75
Y
c c
� >
aD (>D
o >
10
o
2
CO
f t1
� v
9/26
�1 f fy
�'
0/0i
�l o f
o o
N m
Q
29/42-►
cMv cry
o N M
c¢
42/66-►
o 0 0
CD
0
Q�
civ
19/10
�
p 0/0�
� a
p
CO
T
N
p
p
o,
'27/15
'�0/0
T
V N
A co N58/63
®v
°~28/24
co `D
�' `r'
� m r�
,`3/3
E m
o 0 0
o 0 0
,�-0/0
� '>
(A �
sj l�
fn �
� L►
Cn 2
2/4�
80/34,'"
'� f r'
r�
0/0j
o 0 0
� f
Cv
c c
0 Q
a) o
2
o f
T
m
601771
TMT
_�
o¢
42/66;
o 0 o
c c
1/5�
�
�'
�
p 0/0�'
�
N
L1/7
'65
®
'�5/3
'�0/0
�
rn T v
121/123
®
� �
39/27
® �
�
c° v
,`5/5
o
�' "'
N a' o
,`5/1
U')
0 0 0
,`0/0
co
ch
28/39
� � Q
0/0j
0 0 0
N >
� >
o a
flCCD
,N
NCO
142/1041
r
0
46/67-►
C �
0 0
�
N
�
9/4�
a;
�
0/0�
� Z
�
T
CO
'123/35
a
M
'�3/6
'�0/0
�
~171/208
a> �
� m N
•86/136
�
cm
ao
t0/0
� O
T
� � N
,`3/6
�,`20/20
� 'r'
OTO
,�0/0
� o
Cz CD
123/68'
� N N
45/576
N � 'n
0/0�
�
� >
o �
>
190/174-►
130/1041
0/01
0 � o
Cc' ¢
p 23/34
� T° N
0/OZ
a
T
17/12
�
N
'15/25
t0/0
�
°~165/208
� N
w c `r
207/220
� 0
125/5
� o
� � rn
,75/99
"'
� °D o
,21/57
� "�
0 !.R 0
•�0/0
CO
g
41 /62�`
� �
� >
61/122-f
� �
� >
0/0�
� !CRD o
� >
202/1201
�f�.,
� � �
� ¢
224/2771
� � N
c ¢
18/121
0 0
M Q
�
�
45/96
�, �
64/113
co 0/01
N
p
'31/25
'Z1/0
'L0/0
00
°~276/278
®
m
N v
123/5
�
125/5
m
i
rn � �
�' �
�
m r o
•�0/0
a> Co
�' `-'
o 0 0
�0/0
m
o�
.36/29
c c
� a
c c
y Q
c�
c�-"
to
W
71/112
N M O
N
38/34
- •, f r►
�' C T
010-4
0/0
f, f f• -
o 0 0
24212501
C S
� �
�
16/111
a
18/12-
�
cc
215/125-1
15/125
�
29/10
cc
2
0/0-�
cc
7-
p
T
The morning and evening peak hour traffic counts made before the Memorial Day weekend
were proportionally increased by 13 percent to reflect peak season volumes in 1999 (shown
in Figure III -6). The traffic counts made after Memorial Day were also adjusted to be
consistent with the other intersections and 1997 peak season daily counts from CVAG.
Transit Service
Transit service is provided in the Coachella. Valley by the SunLine Transit Agency. There
are currently no fixed SunBus routes serving the study area. SunDial, a valley wide curb -
to -curb dial -a -ride is available to seniors and persons with disabilities who cannot use
SunBus.
Existing Relevant TSM Programs
There are no Transportation System Management plans in effect in the study area at
present.
III -5
IV. PROJECTED TRAFFIC
IV. A SITE TRAFFIC
Project -Related Trip Generation
The potential trip generation from development on-site was determined from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers 1997 publication entitled Trip Generation (Sixth Edition). Trip
generation forecasts for the proposed project (site traffic generation) are shown in Table IV -
1. The trip generation forecasts shown in Table IV -1 are divided into five development
areas, and summarized by land use.
The initial phase of site development (including Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Specific Plan)
is expected to be completed by the year 2004. It includes the development of 873 single
family dwelling units and both golf courses. As shown in Table IV -1, the initial phase of
site development will generate 8,840 daily trips, of which 719 would occur during the
morning peak hour (237 inbound and 481 outbound) and 868 would occur during the
evening peak hour (540 inbound and 327 outbound).
The proposed project is an amendment to the approved Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan.
The original environmental documentation for the Specific Plan included a daily trip
generation of 47,010 ADT. Table IV -1 indicates that the proposed Amendment No. 1 to
SP 218 would reduce the daily site traffic generation upon build -out by 20 percent.
The trip generation associated with buildout of the site would total approximately 37,520
unadjusted daily trip -ends, of which 2,840 would occur during the morning peak hour
(904 inbound and 1,936 outbound) and 3,839 would occur during the evening peak hour
(2,270 inbound and 1,569 outbound). It should be noted that the unadjusted Coral
Mountain Specific Plan Buildout trip generation forecast in Table V-1 does not account for
trip overlap on-site (i.e. trip interactions on-site between the residences and the commercial
uses, golf courses, or schools).
The development of mixed-use projects reduces the trip generation associated with the
development below that which is projected directly from ITE trip generation rates because
these rates were developed from isolated single -use developments and therefore ignore trip
overlap. When different land uses are combined on one site, the actual trip generation
decreases because residents can remain within the site boundaries to do their shopping or
play golf. A single trip from home to the commercial development on-site is counted twice
in Table IV -1 (first for the residential development and then again for the commercial
development). Adjustments can be made to eliminate this double counting of trips that
occurs with mixed use developments.
The adjusted trip generation forecast shown in Table IV -2 details the adjustments made to
reflect trip overlap for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. Up to 10 percent of the residential
trips will be assigned to the commercial uses. Approximately 80 percent of the golf course
trips and 80 percent of the school trips will be assigned to the residential uses on-site. As
shown in Table IV -2, after these adjustments the Coral Mountain Specific Plan will
generate an estimated 23,436 external average weekday trips upon buildout. Of that total,
an estimated 2,056 external trip -ends will occur during the morning peak hour (with 512
inbound and 1,544 outbound) and 2,307 external trip -ends will occur during the evening
peak hour (with 1,501 inbound and 806 outbound).
IV -1
Table IV -1
Estimated Site Traffic Generationa
Planning Area/Land
Use (ITE Code)
Land Use
Quantity
AM Peak Hour
In Out Total
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
Daily
2 -Way
INMAL PHASE (2004)
Resort Village
SFD (210)
275 DU
49
147
196
154
87
241
2,420
Golf (430)
18 Holes
41
8
49
31
29
60
650
Subtotal
90
155
245
185
116
301
3,070
Active Adult Village
SFD (210)
353 DU
62
187
250
187
105
292
2,970
Golf (430)
18 Holes
41
8
49
31
29
60
650
Subtotal
103
195
299
218
134
352
3,620
Primary Village
SFD (210)
245 DU
44
131
175
137
77
215
2,150
Year 2004 Total
237
481
719
540
327
868
8,840
PROJECT BUILDOUT
(YEAR 2010)
Resort Village
SFD (210)
782 DU
139
418
557
438
247
685
6,880
Golf (430)
18 Holes
41
8
49
31
29
60
650
Subtotal
180
426
606
469
276
745
7,530
Active Adult Village
SFD (210)
1375 DU
243
729
972
729
410
1,139
11,560
Golf (430)
18 Holes
41
8
49
31
29
60
650
Subtotal
284
737
1,021
760
439
1,199
12,210
Primary Village
SFD (210)
779 DU
139
416
555
437
246
683
6,850
MFA (230)
397 DU
26
126
152
129
63
192
2,100
Elem. School (520)
800 Students
139
101
240
96
112
208
770
Subtotal
304
643
947
662
421
1,083
9,720
Village Commons
Commercial (820)
100 TSF
97
62
159
301
327
628
6,820
MFA (230)
167 DU
13
64
77
63
31
94
1,010
Subtotal
110
126
236
364
358
722
7,830
Community Facil.
Office (7 10)
10 TSF
26
4
30
15
75
90
230
Year 2010 Total
904
1,936
2,840
2,270
1,569
3,839
37,520
BY LAND USE TYPE
Residential (210 & 230)
3,500 DU
560
1,753
2,313
1,796
997
2,793
28,400
Commercial (820)
100 TSF
97
62
159
301
327
628
6,820
Golf (430)
36 Holes
82
16
98
62
58
120
1,300
Elementary School (520)
800 Student
139
101
240
96
112
208
770
Office (7 10)
10 TSF
26
4
30
15
75
90
230
Year 2010 Total
904
1,936
2,840
2,270
1,569
3,839
37,520
DU=Dwelling Units; SFD=Single Family Detached; MFA=Multi-Family Attached TSF=Thousand
Square Feet.
N-2
Table IV -2
Adjusted Trip Generation Forecast
(Coral Mountain Specific Plan)
Land Use
Unadjusted
Internal
External
Adjusted
(Interval)
Tripsa
Tripsb
Trips
Trips
Residential Trips
- Daily
28,400
7,042
21,358
24,879
- AM Inbound
560
162
398
479
- AM Outbound
1,753
230
1,523
1,638
- PM Inbound
1,796
436
1,360
1,578
- PM Outbound
997
243
754
876
Commercial Trips
- Daily
6,820
5,000
1,820
4,320
- AM Inbound
97
86
11
54
- AM Outbound
62
55
7
35
- PM Inbound
301
180
121
211
- PM Outbound
327
290
37
182
Golf Trips
- Daily
1,300
1,154
146
723
- AM Inbound
82
46
36
59
- AM Outbound
16
14
2
9
- PM Inbound
62
46
16
39
- PM Outbound
58
57
1
30
Elementary School Trips
- Daily
770
684
86
428
- AM Inbound
139
85
54
97
- AM Outbound
101
90
11
56
- PM Inbound
96
14
2
9
- PM Outbound
112
33
5
22
Office Tripsc
- Daily
230
204
26
128
- AM Inbound
26
13
13
20
- AM Outbound
4
3
1
3
- PM Inbound
15
13
2
9
- PM Outbound
75
66
9
42
All Trips Combined
- Daily
37,520
14,084
23,436
30,478
- AM Inbound
904
392
512
708
- AM Outbound
1,936
392
1,544
1,740
- PM Inbound
2,270
689
1,501
1,846
- PM Outbound
1,569
689
806
1,151
a. Taken from Table V-1 without accounting for trip overlap.
b. Each value is double counted and must be halved to eliminate the double counting.
c. The Community Facilities on-site were assumed to be Homeowner's Association offices or recreation
center administrative offices.
N-3
Table IV -3 provides the trip generation forecast for the cumulative projects in the study
area. The trip generation forecast is based upon anticipated development by the year 2010.
Although the cumulative development shown in Table IV -3 represents less than the
approved entitlements, the land uses shown reflect anticipated build -out yields based upon
past development trends. In many cases, the developments are fully lotted, with yields far
below the entitlements. Where alternative yields are not known, (e.g. the 1000 -room hotel
at PGA West) the full potential development was assumed.
The commercial uses shown in Table IV -3 represent support commercial uses for the
adjacent residential development or the resort hotel development. Since the study area is on
the southern edge of development in the Coachella Valley, very few of the commercial trips
will be attracted from outside of the study area. Generally, the commercial trips will be
from the adjoining residential area, from residential development further to the south, or
pass -by trips to residential development further to the south. Other commercial
development is provided for the convenience of the hotel guests, and is not designed to
attract trips from outside the area.
The commercial uses in the study area will not develop until there is adequate retail
demand. When the commercial uses are built in residential areas on the edge of
development, the traffic on the streets should either remain unaffected or decrease slightly.
Therefore, only the traffic associated with the residential and hotel uses of the cumulative
projects were assigned to the street system. Cumulative project commercial trips,
recreational trips (i.e. golfing trips), and school trips were assumed to be ancillary to the
residential uses and were not explicitly assigned to the street system.
Project -Related Trip Distribution and Assignment
Traffic distribution is the determination of the directional orientation of traffic. It is based
upon the geographical location of the site and land uses which will serve as trip origins and
destinations. Traffic assignment is the determination of which specific routes project -
related traffic will use, once the generalized traffic distribution is determined. The basic
factors affecting route selection are minimizing time and distance. Other considerations
might be the aesthetic quality of alternate routes, the number of turning maneuvers, and
avoidance of congestion. Site access locations directly affect the project traffic assignment.
For the initial development phase (year 2004), Figure IV -1 presents the percentage of
project -related daily traffic utilizing the roadway links in the study area, based upon the
existing distribution of land uses, turning movements at intersections, and distributions
shown in traffic studies for nearby projects.
Figure IV -2 provides the directional distribution of peak hour site traffic at the key
intersections for the initial development phase (year 2004). Figure IV -3 presents the
project -related (year 2004) peak hour turning movement volumes in the study area. The
year 2004 network did not assume any new roadway extensions (except for those
roadways necessary for access to the cumulative projects).
Figure IV -4 presents the percentage distribution of daily project traffic through the study
area for the project build -out year (2010). Figure IV -5 provides the directional distribution
of peak hour project traffic for the year 2010. Figure IV -6 shows the peak hour site traffic
turning movements at the key intersections for the year 2010. The year 2010 roadway
network included the completion of Madison Street (north of Avenue 54 and Avenue 50).
IV -4
rr ake
Cahurlra
VYEndo Eneineerine
Figure IV -1
Directional Distribution
of Daily Site Traffic
(Year 2004)
400 Avenue
50
i
310 Avenue
(4%) 52
i
a
380 Avenue
(4% 54
i
770 Airport
(go/a Blvd.
h
330 Avenue
0(4%) 58
]
�. . r230 Avenue
(3%) 60
3
0 Avenue
M%) 62
Legend
2260 Daily Site Traffic Volume
(25%) Percent of Daily Site External Traffic
Scale: 1 " _ ;
F22F
C
Z4/2
t1/0
�0/0
135/20
�
F 12/6
®
t0/0
CDO
+rcz
•�5/3
0
°��' �
o 0 0
•�0/0
��
cn
CO �
•� y
u�
N O�
�
n
O/OjU
o
CD c
cn O
181331
� Q
4/10-►
°Ora
� ¢>
0/0-►
o 0 0
Q
i- N
4/B�
T 0/0�
�
I
cd O ai
T
C\jp
C =`
LL O Y v
Z9/5
11/1
�0/0
�
U cz
®�
•118/10
®0
''0/0
� m
L"
X27/15
2?
�''r'
o �
`or`
X1/0
�' �
0 0 0
`000
�0/0
�?
OMn
Gln
O/O
M ? f••
oj
OOO
O d
O �
� Q
a�
�¢
8/16-►
i o
o a
0/0-►
o 0 o
c
cts
m
cry
p 0/0�
� a
p
T
N
15/3
'L0/0
0 o
OO
®
a> N
��
OOa
~18I10
�
� .o
dm
o� O o
OOO
t0/0
� �
� co
FO/O
,`O/O
cn
0/0�
0/0-f
N � �
6/16
rp
� � �
o �
C
� >
CD
o EL
c L
O O
Q
�
8/161
M S O
o ¢
0/Oi
0 0 0
C ""
c 'o
0/01
�
N 2/3�
�
p 0/04
2 °'
�� ��11
•+ J
T
T
U
'�0/0
'�1/1
'cm L0/0
CL jE
ca
�
m C:>
115/8
�
a� �
�t2011
� �
�
a�
0 0
,`0/0
�'
oro
�5/3
0 0
•�0/0
E j
o
to =
c2
0 0
O/O�'
O/O�'
0 0=
� j
c
O>
`c¢
p L
Y
0o
Q
7/14
Baa
�
B/18-►
o00
0 0
U U
cts
I
4I71
�
pp 0/0�
� Z
CL CL
c'
�
=
W o
�8/5
J
r
F0/0
0, �
F19/11
�
N
+0/0
0
� O
� o N
�0/0
� "'
o o N
f0/0
� `r'
o cmc �
X19111
j �
�
C:, m
w
CD
�>
� aci
yy
16/28-f
�
0
"� � r.
0/0�'
�
0/0-►
o 0 0
¢>
�
9/18-►
o 0 0
o ¢
0/0-
/
o c�
Q>
0/0�
0/0-j
-'
p 0/Qi
�
� 0/0�
a
C�
T
T
'�0/0
�
'L3/2
"�0/0
0 0 0
0 0 0
•122/13
•�8/5
�
a 7 N
"'
O O M
o o
�-16/9
�0/0
�
N O
� "'
r
X 0 0
N o o
t0/0
�0/0
� o
� `D
-
y>
o>
�>
0/0�
1-9
0/0�'
o� o
13/23
o� o
11/20-
oov
¢
�
8/15-
8/151
o00
EQ
c
0/0-►
o00
¢
0/0,
�
0/0,
�
�p 0/0q
N
p
'�0/0
'17/4
t0/0
00
-17/10
�
��38/22
�
~24/13
�
!R0
o
X5/3
�
� o
'n
CD co
o �
,�0/0
a,>> 0
`r'
0 0 0
0 0 0
o�
o�
� �
� �
o �
0 0
to
W
ooh
0/1j
o�oMn
R.
c�*�o �
9/1 &-
o o M
� ¢
20/36-►
o 0
� ¢
12/221
N o �
M
� oC
0/0-4
�
0/OZ
�
LO 12/20
��yy11
W
�
T
yy
T
F��77�
228/20 7
'�7/4
�0/0
N
�-251/176
�
F85/50
®
� O
a
t0/0 N
X39/23
�' �
o 0 0 ,�0/0
� �
is m
.i �
� c
7
2/4�'
j�
'n �
n-
0/0�'
o o
�>
Q
0 0 0 o a>
`o `o `o Q>
U
M
132/2871
m Q
29/891
�
o
0/01
c
�
� 32/67
0/OZ
�
" O
T
N
'64145
'�9/5
t0/0 v�
L � L
cz
N M
�
F132r83
� o
t0/0 � c°
(n }
co �
,191/134
�' 'n
o i v
�4/3
�' �
t=n
0 0 0
�0/0
i �,
in �
,� � �•
o
•j L•
in
O
co
o/os
- ��
oro
a) o�
o>
c� o o a
zt
r
Q
55/1421
� o `�
co Q
0/01
666 c :'
Y
o
�
�
20/441
�
N 0/0�
� Q
cd
O
O
�
138/24
�0/0
�
v
F130/84
®
�
,-
C
®C,
t0/0 v
o T
C) c�
�' `N"
o co
o c� �
X3/2
m
r o o
F0/0
0/0�
p/p�
r'
m v v i
44/137
O !Zi
�>
a) o
o L
r' aD d
o 0 0 0G
O �
m Q
57/142 i
m o a
c Q
O
/01
0/0-
0 0 0
O O
0/0�
0/0-4
�
N 12/252
N
�
O 0/0�
m �
LC)
T
T
O�
'�-0/0
'L8/5
=E
�
�
�
� 106/70
®
Z -"-
�
t 145/91 0
o
o
�' "'
o r� M
.`38/25
°' �
0 0 o
r0/0
a>°
,�0/0
in
i!1
op
0/01
N
�
0/0 �'
47
CO
O >
� � m a
000 o
0
CL 'c
r o
¢'
48/1171
co
�
c Q
0
60/1561
0 o c r
0 0
Q
cc
27/56
,n
m
ap 0/01
� Z
-p 1�
�
T
C o
X6/13
�
17/12
259/40 �
J o
co
o
t0/0
�
� LOo
rn
000
(138/93
�
N
)"'
arol
C'O c
o c m
-0/0 cm
�
ci r
�0/0
X2/1
X137/94 j
112/247
o 0 0
4>
0/0 -CD
ooc
0/0 �
>
o �
orCV) v aCi
Q
0/01
0 0 0
�aoi Q
66/1541
`o o �
o¢
OIOi
0� T Q
N a
0/0-j
�
O 0/h
�
1" 0/h
" a
M
T
T
'oro
'L22/15
-Lo/o �
o
-F157/109
"'
o o
113176
� 0
� "'
0 0 0
0 0 0
0"180/126 a) o
�61/42
;
,�3/2
CD
J70/0 CD
0/1,'
0/0o
o c�
0/0,
�>
o>
o 0 o N
80/1781
0 0�
CD Q
54/1261
O O r
C Q
0
93/2001
O O O Q
co
0/0
�
CD0/0-+
0/0-4
�
�p 0x02
�
N
O
T
t0/0
148/34
t0/0
1120/83
�
x2751193
�
�
"'"176/117
r 0
a� o
� �'
Q12O�
Q12
v `o N
�0/0
(D 0
0 11'
0 0 0
`o o `o
j75/9
o�
X38/26
r
N>
c c
y>
'l r c�
O O cDCD cn
1I2�
O N (�
2/0O
O C
OrOs
61 /1361
O
145/3141
� Q
85/1941
^ o W
CC
w
0/0-4
0/0,
�
Lf) 86/176-1
co
M
T
M
T
Figure IV -4
Directional Distribution
of Daily Site Traffic
(Year 2010)
oho =mom
��-0
to my O ('7�
N Cr) v CV; v
O�
2 L v
�p
1710 1520 790
O
1230
Avenue
(8%) a 3°0
50/n
50
O Co
V*
Cr) r4
e� En
2690 2220 1080
1020
Avenue
(12%°) 10% (-`►°/a)
(4%)
52
caro CO
�CO
T
(DN
0 4480 3580
980
-T47/-.)
Avenue
(0%) (19%p) (15%)
54
r
to
Q N
a 1360
2500
Airport
6%)
(11%)
Blvd.
G o
r�
r0
C!
Lake0:1 v
Tr
r
Cahuilla
0 2270
970
Avenue
10%
° 4%n7
58
12.
LO4
1 �LP
4700
co Lo
LO N 640 Avenue
201D CO
•rn�
a
LP
T x
a
0
0
Avenue
(0%) (0%°)
(0%)
62
Legend
2260 Daily Site Traffic VlExtemal
(25%) Percent of Daily Si:Traff
ic
iWndo Engineering
Scale: 1 " = 5660'
o47-
x-412
Ivo
o/o
33116
®
9/4
®
.0/0
�
O O f`d�
o
{010
�' m
o 0 0
{4/2
�'
�O O O
0 0 0
{0/0
N N
d o
in
� i L.
o
in 0
L•
�
a>
�
0
on
c
0
cn
0 �
N }' O
co
0 0 0
J
o/os
� a o
2-
o/o
= Q
N
112/1s-�►
m Q
3/7i
o
0/Oi
o
CD
0/OZ
3/91
�
T 0/0�
�
C=
T
a)
LL 2
'�3/1
t -2J1
't0/0
24/11
®
29!13
�
0
t0/0
® �
m
� o �
{7/3
°oma' '�
{1!0
"'
0 0 0
{0!0
d �.
in �
•-� i �•
in �
in �
O
f r'
c c
m
d ¢
8/21-
OMN
� Q
�
10/24
�ArO
= Q
c
/Oi
0/0--
X00
= >
c �..
0/0�
m
�
C7 2/41
�
p 1/4-j
� Q
co
T
N
12/1
Z713
'�0/0
16/8
�
26112
®
t5/2
®�,
�
o
{6/3
w N
"'
O s [?
o a r`3
{110
m
rn o o
{0/0
� '>
o/o�
2/7
N >
cD
�
CL)
�
5/14-
aoa
'MoQ
9/22
�;,To
c Q
1/4i
aaa
r-
0
0/0�.
�
N 1/31
�
,
p� 0/0LO
� cn
T
T
1211
z311
'�0/1
_U
IL
��
1015
�
4715
C
co
X18/8
}. �
CD
{4/2
°oma' �
{914
�
{0/0
o
rn
� >
o >
0Co
c=
N Y
OIOrn j
oo�
010?
C
6/11
o00
`o `0
3/9
m Q
6/15
� r M
o Q
5/16-►
0
0 0
as
0/0�.
�
1
pp 0/0�
� a Q
� Z
m s
0/0�
�
0/OZ
T
T
T 5/14
T
T
CD
O
x-0/1
�
'�1/0
18/3
�
J o
0
o �
0/0
{ 0/0
�
�
o N o
18/8
f-1/0
�
N
� `r'
MMCD
o �n cv
t0/0
{ 18/8
0�
� O
j CO
-o aci
4/11'
0/0j
1/1i
vv
0/
o`o`o
� ¢
�
6/15-►
oa`o
c ¢'
c
0/0-
mar
'�
Q ¢'
0/0,
�
O 0/OZ
�
I� 2/2i
a
C'7
T
T
'�0/0
®
t3N
'L0/0
10/5
�
15/7
®o
�
t0/0
OC_DO
{311
N
`"'
_
C> 0.
{1!a
Go) "'
NOO
{a/a
� O
� co
� >
o >
o °'
01D�
8/23
o O
0/1�
3/9i
a Q
5112
0/0i
o 0 0
� ¢>
o/o�,
�
a/a-i
�
co o/o�
�
N
O
T
LO/0
�6l3
ZO/0
x
9/4
�
135117
�
25/12
�
i
r o
{3/1
m o
'i'
D o w
o c�
{0/0
a� 0
0 0 0
o 0 0
{0/1
o�
o�
c� coo
� >
y >
W
1l1�
OWN
ons'
���
o/o-+
3/8-►
11/31-
W
0 0 0
� a Q
8/23-*
m s
0/0�
�
0/OZ
�
T 5/14
�
T
O
cn
-75!42
14/7
't0/0
C C
673/358
�
��
N M
1183/93
a
a� 0
10/0
a
N
O N
f-0/0
�'—�'
�cNov
X113/74
�
o00
F0/0
� CO
_
c
5/13'
c c s
y a
7/4�
N
o�-M
2>
0/0j
o� o
o
o>
U
218/667
0 0 0
m a
52/166-►
� N
c Q
0/01
0 0 0
0¢
CO .-.
0/0�
�
�196/278�
�;
0/Oi
�
A
O
'
T
C\j�"_
N
L � L
W
162133
'39/20
ZO/0
�
rn m�
4$81259
��
NQ
F588/298
� 0
10/0
i� Cl)I}
CO "' N
x•137173
�' `n
c
o a`o r
,`19/10
�' �
'az'0
O a':' o
F0/0
��
s/17s
o/os
��
r:
otos
N>
d�
158/4831
o T�
� ¢
202/55•►
�,
o N �
� Q
0
0/01
�
c
0/0�
� ,;,
"' �
m
M33/102�
�
�
p 29/84
� ¢
co
T
N
^a)
I L
'51/27
'152/78
N
'�0/0
rn �
329/174
®
N N
,�,
� r
525/268
®
=
195/47
�
cu °D126/67
o inn �
�14/7
�' m
N o o
,F0/0
•-�
..i L.
cn �
� L►
cn x
1/2�'
O OD N
O/O,'
r'
m w M
r�/
72/2Z6�'
0>
aD o
O�
o a
O L_
107/325
O a r
� �
¢
m
179/4991
���
� � '•'�
C
o ¢
29/841
0 0 0
C 7
0 0
0/01
N 19/59
�
1
p 0/0LO
� `"
T
T
O N
'33/18
�-53/27
m �
X118/109
xE
rn ;
215/114
�
�
N �
1357/183
�
�
1365/191
�
Y
,83/44
O
I �' `r'f-
175/90
�
N o �
,F0/0
d
a>°
cn >
.j L.
in
in x
g v>
1/2�'
�' CO �
O/O�
N f �
11 4/247 �
0 !CR:,
�>
O O
>
p L
CL
7012131
c � N
� ¢
121/341-
rn
� ¢
108/3631
0 0
c c
Q
0/01
�
16/49
"'
�
00 0/0�
� Z
-p F=-
T
T
T
N o
g;
'� 10/29
16/8
175/94
�
O
J
0/0
a� �
� co
1370/190
®N
167170
� o
CD �
�0/0
o `� �
•20/1065
� �
� rn 4
�378/184
W
88/258 �
o00
0/0-#
or�rn
1421157 �
�r�c�
� >
c �
� m
Q >
0/01
0 0 0
0¢
124/3551
C> �, �
i`
>
� Q
0
49/1251
UD
� � :C31
Q
CD
0/0�.
�
�
p 0/01
�
�
� 41/39
a
M
T
T
,�.,
ZO/0
0
X52/27
'�0/0
213/111
�
�' �
1299/154
�
1517/287
S o
N `r o
X53/28
,18110
�o`'
C. 0 0
�1/0
7/21 J
� �'
0/0J
N � °'•°
0/0J
m � �
c c
� >
c
o >
c c
0 >
71/207-0-
Cm LO
O r —C,2
`o °T
¢
101/287-
m �
C Q
0
172/5351
O O
Q
�
0/01
�
1/3-1
c� 12/2 �
�
N
p
2010
'1129/68
ZO/0
04
�,
178f93
�
o
1729/388
®
1512/278
a d
i
� � o
�
Q' o v
-�0/0
°o•-' �'
0 0 0
X6/17
o�
o�
X56/29
c �
o aci
N>
o 0
W
13/39 �
C" LO
LO
J
o!,R,0
��
0/OS
�o o rn
59/1731
2358231
0 0
- � ¢
166/5281
0/OZ
0l0 -j
�
Lo111/323-4
T
co
W
T
Table IV -3
Estimated Trip Generation for Non -Site Cumulative Developmenta
Land Use Category
Land Use
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
(ITE Code)
Quantity
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
2 -Way
The Ranch SP
Commercial (820)
120 TSF
109
69
178
340
368
708
7,660
Hotel (310)
600 Room
230
147
377
212
188
400
5,000
Subtotal
339
216
555
552
556
1,108
12,660
PGA West SP
SFD (210)
400 DU
72
217
289
240
135
375
3,710
Hotel (3 10)
1000 Room
434
278
712
393
349
742
8,580
Commercial (820)
100 TSF
97
159
301
327
628
6,820
Subtotal
603
_62
557
1,160
934
811
1,745
19,110
Foster Turf SP
SFD (210)
200 DU
37
112
149
128
72
200
1,960
The Grove SP
SFD (210)
820 DU
146
438
584
458
257
715
7,180
Commercial (820)
210 TSF
152
97
249
492
533
1,025
10,980
Subtotal
298
535
833
950
790
1,740
18,160
PGA Weiskopf SP
SFD (210)
400 DU
72
217
289
240
135
375
3,710
Vista Santa Rosa SP
SFD (2 10)
850 DU
151
453
604
473
266
739
7,430
The Quarry
SFD (210)
58 DU
13
38
51
42
24
66
630
Green SP
SFD (2 10)
277 DU
51
153
204
172
97
269
2,650'
Travertine SP
SFD (210)
1526 DU
269
808
1,077
801
450
1,251
12,720
MFA (230)
774 DU
44
214
258
223
110
333
3,710
Commercial (820)
100 TSF
97
62
159
301
327
628
6,820
Hotel (310)
500 Room
184
118
302
170
151
321
4,100
Subtotal
594
1,202
1,796
1,495
1,038
2,533
27,350
Total
2,158
3,483
5,641
4,986
3,789
8,775
93,660
a. Based upon trip generation rates published by the ITE Trip Generation (Sixth Edition).
N-5
Table IV -4 provides daily traffic projections within the study area for each future scenario
including year 2004 conditions (with and without the proposed project), and year 2010
conditions (with and without the proposed project). Year 1999 peak season daily volumes
are included for comparison.
Table IV -4
Daily Traffic Volumes By Scenario
Roadway Link
1999a
Peak Season
2004
Ambient
2004
+Project
2010
Ambient
2010
+Project
Jefferson Street
- N/O Avenue 50
10,900
20,760
23,020
29,510
32,820
- N/O Avenue 52
7,300
18,920
21,860
27,150
30,710
- N/O Avenue 54
6,600
20,090
24,150
27,130
31,160
PGA Boulevard
- S/0 Avenue 54
5,200
12,280
12,490
20,110
20,560
Madison Street
- N/O Avenue 50
0
0
0
9,540
12,870
- N/O Avenue 52
300
290
290
14,940
20,020
- N/O Avenue 54
0
0
0
22,450
30,220
- N/O Airport Boulevard
1,800
11,180
15,970
23,180
33,750
- N/O Avenue 58
1,200
10,700
15,960
22,810
34,320
- N/O Resort Village Access
200
7,800
13,900
17,250
30,460
- N/O Avenue 60
200
7,800
11,130
17,250
25,730
- S/0 Avenue 60
0
7,840
7,840
17,250
17,280
Monroe Street
- N/O Avenue 50
10,500
15,190
17,250
19,010
23,560
- N/O Avenue 52
7,500
12,530
15,050
16,200
21,750
- N/O Avenue 54
3,400
7,950
10,810
10,060
16,160
- N/O Airport Boulevard
2,800
5,600
8,310
9,380
18,140
- N/O Avenue 58
2,200
4,590
7,610
8,050
18,360
- S/0 Avenue 58
1,100
2,380
4,890
4,190
13,780
- N/O Avenue 60
1,100
2,380
4,890
4,190
10,040
- S/0 Avenue 60
1,100
2,150
4,300
3,470
7,450
- S/0 S. Primary Housing Access
1,100
2,150
2,150
3,470
4,790
- N/O Avenue 62
1,100
2,140
2,150
3,470
3,470
Avenue 50
- W/O Jefferson Street
6,300
14,540
15,270
11,080
12,790
- E/O Jefferson Street
7,500
8,090
8,140
13,890
15,410
- E/O Madison Street
6,300
7,840
7,890
11,090
11,880
- E/O Monroe Street
5,800
7,550
7,950
10,740
11,970
Avenue 52
- W/O Jefferson Street
7,500
11,540
12,690
18,860
21,550
- E/O Jefferson Street
4,600
6,610
6,640
13,520
15,740
- E/O Madison Street
4,500
6,500
6,530
10,050
11,130
- E/O Monroe Street
4,300
5,730
6,040
8,100
9,120
a. Estimated from 1998 peak hour traffic counts at the key intersections after they were seasonally
adjusted and increased by an annual traffic growth rate. These volumes were rounded to the nearest
hundred vehicles.
N-6
Table IV -4 (Continued)
Daily Traffic Volumes By Scenario
Roadway Link
1999a
Peak Season
2004
Ambient
2004
+Project
2010
Ambient
2010
+Project
Avenue 54
- W/O Jefferson Street
200
180
180
200
200
- E/O Jefferson Street
2,800
11,420
15,690
11,100
15,580
- E/O Madison Street
1,100
4,910
6,790
5,150
8,730
- E/O Monroe Street
1,300
2,290
2,670
2,620
3,600
Airport Boulevard
- E/O Madison Street
900
2,070
2,660
3,570
4,930
- E/O Monroe Street
1,900
2,730
3,500
3,940
6,440
Avenue 58
- W/O Madison Street
400
2,060
2,060
4,030
4,030
- E/O Madison Street
800
2,610
3,600
4,970
7,240
- E/O Monroe Street
1,100
1,590
1,920
2,260
3,230
Avenue 60
- E/O Madison Street
200
740
4,070
1,720
10,180
- W/O Monroe Street
200
740
2,620
1,720
6,420
- E/O Monroe Street
300
600
830
1,070
1,710
Avenue 62
- W/O Monroe Street
0
1,610
1,610
3,320
3,320
- E/O Monroe Street
1,100
1,520
1,520
2,160
2,160
a. Estimated from 1998 peak hour traffic counts at the key intersections after they were seasonally
adjusted and increased by an annual traffic growth rate. These volumes were rounded to the nearest
hundred vehicles.
IV. B THROUGH TRAFFIC
Year 2004 non -site traffic volumes are provided in Figure IV -7. They were developed by
increasing existing turning movements by a 2% annual traffic growth factor and explicitly
including the traffic volumes from a portion of eight cumulative projects shown in Table
IV -3. The Vista Santa Rosa Specific Plan was not included in the year 2004 non -site traffic
because the extension of Madison Street north of Avenue 54 was not assumed for the year
2004. The year 2004 analysis assumed that approximately 45 percent of the remaining
eight cumulative projects were completed by the year 2004 (5 years of the assumed 11 year
build -out). The year 2004 daily traffic projections are shown in Table IV -4.
Year 2010 non -site peak hour traffic volumes are provided in Figure IV -8. They were
developed by increasing existing turning movements by a 2% annual traffic growth factor
and explicitly including the traffic volumes from the nine cumulative projects shown in
Table IV -3. The year 2010 analysis assumes the extension of Madison Street from Avenue
54 to the north past Avenue 50 is completed. The year 2010 daily traffic projections are
shown in Table IV -4.
IV -7
U_
154/41
'� 11/7
+-0/0
ie �-533/365
®
�,
r
~71/49
�
�, O
N ;
p
f0/0
®D
N
cd
ci v
�'
X4/5
Z;5 o
i0/0
� CO
� e-
� >
°'
48/33
9/6�
;
41/67J
�
¢
zt O
¢
297/540-►
� a
60/113-►
- �
�
0/01
o
C
� 10/23
N
28/631
O
' `
T
j Zo
1133/85
'L5/6
ZO/0
�
O
CD N
r r
�
Q o
~83172
�
Z o
�-85/61
® �
O
2
rn �
X474/355
'r'
Cl)r�
,`4/11
�' "'
0 0 0
� 0/0
i �•
43)
�
05 a)
Y }
o �
c >
°' ¢
c
oio 1\i
10/29
`� � �
0/0j
� � \
_
¢
58/1081
"'
^
o ¢
70/1301
o
'- �
�
48/8CII
m i
�
0/01
� a
�
CO
•—
p
N
O
cu
'57/33
'�0/0
�
~157/128
�
''85/61
c,
� cm
U
�
� �
o 0 0
�
W
3/4S
�
89/37
N N
0/0-�
c c
N >
a
-c6
106/1841
0 Q
70/13
O O O
C 7
0
�
roi
as
�
N 35/52
� ,�
�
p) 0/0�
0
� N
LO
T
T
�
Z2/B
"18/11
'00 L0/0
�
�
� � °.�°
-226/194
®
� �
107/70
�
c` i °
X6/6
o
�' "'
N c; CO
-�41/23
�
0 0 Q.
-�0/0
� j
�.
cn >
in o
..j * L.
in
c c
>
m�
�>
=
m a
o
R r
� `�'�
31/431co
�� r►
o v
0/0�'
', 4 r1
o 0 0
rn
uoi
�¢
196/2141
coo
�� N
�¢
78/1421
0 0 0
s
0 0
�
�
77/150
r
�
ap 0/0�
� Z
.y
V
T
T
T
0 0
=
Y E
�;
�-73/115
�
�
13/12
t0/0
�
f0 �
�
Cl) co
-1387/430
�
�
~298/285
�
of
t0/0
0�
a>
CD �
,�4/6
`�"
� � "'
�34/30
N
� `n
o N o
�0/0
j �
rn
T
W
'c
T
c c
H
119
� �
293/487
D o r
>
50/62
� >
0/0j
a'
o p o
a ¢
-p Q
418/4471
m¢
�
240/3371
� r�
N M
c¢
o
0/01
�
N o
1/1�
�'
p 42/66
in
- N
�
ti 0/0�
a
0
co
T
r
J
�
168/61
�
�
248/49
t0/0
v = °n°
6111569
u�
rn -�
~413/369
®
O
~31/13
�
� O
co r �
X205/205
� _
135/70
O O O
� o .
,`9/23
cc
� _
46/70'
� �
67/135
�' a �
0/0�
� � v
>
°c'
�
o aci
515/630-►
(Co.
� �
a-, ¢
339/5091
,n
� � Z;3
�
c ¢
26/181
c r
� N
�, a'
�
TNN
�
�
72/126
�
72/1291
r'
col 80/433-4
v
N
V,
T
r
134/29
'64/39
LO/0
x
�
N
~707/611
®
-~380/230
�
t44/271
� 0
z
��ioc*�
N
X167/128
mO
�
owe
co � N
,-1/2
d�
o00
0 0 0
F0/0
m
o�
o�
r-
r
� >
I y >
0 0
to
W
89/153
� Q, �
53/61
� � �?
0/0�
� � 0
520/7371
� r o
� ¢
175/3841
206/452--1
0 0 0
� �
237/138
T N r
a)
60/103
Cb
cu¢
�
U-) 0/0-j
�yy
W
T
W
T
U
1117/82
124/15
tO/O
iF
Q,
co`o "'
1124n76
�
ao N N
-125/83
�
N �
�-0/0
�
cz
� o �
�0/0
m
""` o
x-6/6
�
N co o
F0/0
� `i L►
cn
(n �
s1 + L►
Cn
C
7
C
�
�
10/7 s
� 2
� >
`c¢
47n5J
� �
� °'
�n
5$411171
� a
87/174-0
� Cl)
o
0/01
N�
o
C
010
26/68 �,
�
-57/1321
m
O
A
w
T
Zo
0 0
'107/68
�
111/10
�
'�0/0
�
CD N
r' a, ;
823/550
�,
N � r
~172/129
� o
~155/105
® �
O
2
�
X326/272
�
�' `O
r L-0 v
X8/14
�' �
0 0 0
f0/0
Y
N >
c
O}
O
17/17
� � c
11/32J
't
� �
0/0j
� � �
Q
N
� a'
�
co
CL
363/89
^ � N
�
98/2031
� �
0
104/207-
��
77/95.,
r-
�
m
89/181,
r
�
0/Oi
� a
M
^p1
N
co
1127/80
'100/60
t0/0
r
827/522
®
� N
� o rn
E301/222
®
�
�-155/105
�
cn
N y
X318/201
N �
� � �
X10/8
� m
0 4
�0/0
W
m
.0
a
4/6�
��
100/42,
f �'
0/0�
y
�
336/88
336/88
�
Q
�
170/3381
=� �
0 � �
r-
o ¢
104/207
o 0 0
0 0
2/6�
� r
�
CV 59/112
p) 0/0�
� `n
� �1
�/
T
T
r,
185/61
136/22
L0/0
"CD
rn rn
539/340
®
�
r � �
1370/290
�
� �
E206/132
�. m roi
X214/137
o
`r'
m � N
X89/54
� �
0 0 0
,`0/0
1/2J
o� N
35/49
r1
c� v cv
0/0�
o 0 0
�>
CL)
o>
d a
0
219/57
o
� �
Q
�
267/3631
� � �
0
124/249-►
o0o
c�
0 0
0/0q
Q' o'
�
571117,
�
�
ap 0/0�
� Z
0
T
T
T
0
2E
Y
fC �
N N
'110/145
�
o
'17/15
'�0/0
®'
CD
d
Co �
4 �
658n22
� �
n �"�
� (�
X401/355
®
rn
-t0/0
m
� O
v>
c° � `�'
,`4n
�
�
�n N,`41/36
� �
o v o
��0/0
d C
�
77
�
T
N >
o
a�
T
285/401,'
: � �?
56n0Ir J
� N °�°
0/0�
714n901
0 `o r
� ¢
285/4441
� � �
o ¢
0/01
0 � o
>
N o
1/11
-'
p 77/137
�
0/01
a
o
M
T
T
J
�
N
'171/66
ZO/0
o It193/102
C M r
765n79
�
—a)
R o C
ccn
~563/474
®
•145/44
CD
a�
r coCOrn
X252/263
N
�' U-)
co co �
,46/83
d �
o 0 0
�21l50
o
�' �
rn
� >
CD�
71/131'
� �'
76/152'
0/0-fIDa
752/8381
LO
a) it
418/6761
o a
56/361
Q
c o �
Mn a
OD:!!tQ
a)86/159-
�
cc
�
105/1641
:1 i N
r �
p397/953
N
p
0 0
'45/501139/85
t0/0
x
o Q o
969/851
�
D N r
•815/521
�
`"955/611
�
N m �
X243/196
o
a) o
rn N o
•-1/5
a 0
�' `r'
0 0 0
0 0 0
f0/0
-' CO
o�
v
r
c °c'
H
143/290,'
91/107 ,'
� Q' v
0/0
� �' �
� � �
� a
387/8431
N o
� a
452/9911
0 0 0
� �
W753/1047
W
267/156
T C\j'
98/215
U-) 0/0-j
W
�
T
W
T
IV. C TOTAL TRAFFIC
Figure IV -9 shows the year 2004 total peak hour traffic volumes within the study area upon
completion of the initial project phase. The total peak hour volumes shown in Figure IV -9
were developed by adding the site traffic (shown in Figure IV -3) to the 2004 non -site
traffic (depicted in Figure IV -7).
Figure IV -10 shows the year 2010 total peak hour traffic volumes within the study area
upon build -out of the proposed project and cumulative projects. The total peak hour
volumes shown in Figure IV -10 were developed by adding the site traffic (shown in Figure
IV -6) to the 2010 non -site traffic (depicted in Figure N-8).
IV -8
FFr
182/61
X17/11
t0/0
_U
CD
rn
~785/541
�
� .o
C °ter° o
~156/99
�
� o
N N
�"O/0
®D
N
ctS
W �
N ``� o
�0/0
d
�.
„`43/28
cis
i �►
CO 0
N
$
o >
o �
49/371
9161'
" U.
41/67J
� '� o
429/8261
_�
� ¢
89/2021.
� �T
� ¢
0/01
�
41/90-1
�
28/63
�
LL
�
T
T
CZ
0
n,
'197/129
114/12
�0/0
ocn
O
T cv
�
r' v o
�-215/155
�
'85/61
� D
�
0
i N
`'' o
X665/489
°moo' "�
iNn
X9/14
°oma' `o"
o 0 0
•�0/0
=
c
c
�
�
a`�i
cm
0 � o
10/291
�
o >
¢
0/01
0 0 0
�
Y}
� ¢
113/2501
r �
c
70/1301
0
c�
�°
�' C.
�
(h 69/124
T
�
p 0/0�
� a
�
r
�
�.
�
294/57
t0/0
Qi
�
� � rn
1287/212
185/61
�
co
��
� N
CD Lo
co co
F1on
�
�m
�'oo
Fo/o
�>
cn
Cl)
3/41
89/37-#'
� N�
44/1371
��
N
�
� L
Zi
Q
�
163/3261
�,
,�
70/1301
0 0 0
0 0
1 /5�
CD
�;
M
N 47n7�
�
�
p� 0/0q
� `n
T
r
�
�'�2/8
126/16
ZO/0
o
�
� o
� � CO
(332/264
�
� �
1252/161
� o
�
N�
-6/6
.rn
�' "'
N v N
X79/48
�' �
0 0 0
,�0/0
CD
� �
31 /431
� v c�
0/01
0 � �
N >
o >
c L
`` o
�¢
244/3311
co Re
v � co
t
o¢
139/298 -
0 0 0
0 0
LO
�
�
J 04/208
r'
�
pp 0/0�
M Z
�
0 0
2 E
Y
o
'79/128
�
�
'�-30/24
'59/40
®D
cc
a>
601103
r,
�
387/430
86/176
� ^ M
~437/378
� N
� �
-FO/0
� o
o'
T
.�4/6
"'
U') `o 1-41
,35/31
� 'r'
o co m
,137/94
j `�
CL c
404n331
�`N �
50/621
c`oco�
� >
0/01
� >
¢¢
418/4471
oor
o¢
306/4911
N -23
c¢
0/01
oCr
� a
>
N o
1/1-4
�
�
p 42/66
co0
� N
0/0-+
Z
m o
M
r
r
J
�
268/61
�
$
'170/64
'�0/0
v � �
~767/678
� N
rn c C
~5271445
�
0
�-211/139
�
� O
oho r in
X266/247
U')
� cu r°Oi
�38n2
2 �
0 0 0
X9/23
�
46n11
� �
67/1351
�
0/01
� a �
� >
� >
595/8081
!RR
° � �
� ¢
393/6351
c ¢
119/218
m N
m ¢
TNN
�
�
72/126
72/129
T'
cp180/433�
a
CV
p
o
134/29
'�112n3
'�0/0
oa
N827/693
�
v r r
1654/423
�
-1620/388
�
i
MNO`O.-X205/155`nco
LnX1/2`o
o
�5/9
0>
o�
>54/661'��'�N
>
551
L.,.237/138-;
�0 0��
0/01N731�¢321/6981w¢291/6461o
co��
cn
W
� N r
�
OC)
W
601103
�
86/176
�
�
T
U
'2192/122
'38/22
't0/0
�.,
N
+1798/1134
®
r � M
•-308/176
�
� o
N �
t0/0
L-
coCD
CD
o y
�-0/0
m
N
,118/80
� N 4
�0/0
� �
�
� �
� _
�
N
63/65
� �
17110
v a'
c
47/75
� ;R-
o >
802/1844-►
0 0 0
� ¢
-�
139!340 -�
r�i
� -
� Q
0
0/0'
M
o N
� ¢
0/0�
�
,�.223l346 1
CO
co., "'
571132
,�;
m r
�
LL
T
T
CM
O
� r
'169/101
�
150/30
'LO/0
�
�o
N
F1311/808
N m �
+759!427
�
� 0
155/105
®D �
0
roi cm coo
�464/345
'�
� '- � �
•27/24
�' �
0 0 0
�0/0
CD
O
.j i �
cn �
in >
d L.
cn
co
23/34
� T r►
rn v
11/32J
N c'L �o
0/0�
�^ a �'
c a)
o °'
¢
_}
521/1377-
� c �
UO)
� ¢
299/759
0o C N
r
c a
o
104/207--
o ��
LL Y�
co
77/952
r M
�
22/2834
� �
C'�.,
�
p 29/84
�
� ¢
N
O
Cc)
*-
N
CL
178/107
�
'252/137
N
'�0/0
LO
� � �
-F1156/696
®
�, N
� C �
F826/490
®.o
X250/151
� �
10
r m�
•445/268
'�'
o a r
,24/15
� m
N o o
,�0/0
W
100/42
Lr,,
72/226
Cr.'
443/1214
� CIO �
� ¢
349/838-*
�
� w rn
� _?
o¢
321291
132/291-
0 0
- �
0 0
2/6-4
2/6�
; o
�
N 78/172
r
�
p) 0/0�
� `n
T
T
�
118/78
'289/49
�
'2118/109
o
� r
1754/454
®
� O
r � �
F726/473
®
�
o �
F572/323
CD �
co
N
v v �
F297/181
'r'
CO CO �
,x-265/143
�
o
CC) `o r
�0/0
� j
.� i �
cn �
in
� 2
1 /4�
�_ �' -.r'
� � �'
114/247
o � o
o aci
c
o >
o r
289/791
0 !;2
¢
388/704
^
� ¢
232/612-
`0 0 0
Z
i
0/0�
C)
y r
�
73/166
� o
r r
0/0�
�
.y
v
T
T
pp
T
O�
'120/174
�
�;
X33/24
;�, �
X175/94
�
= E
Y
�
•656/722
� �
� � M
770/545
�
-67r70
�
Z
,`4/7
,F62146
� �
LO LO
X378/184
O
� �
CL
o + �
� � y
� + �
g o'
o >
Q >
CL 'c
373/660
56/70'
a' �
142/157
� � �
714/7901
� ¢
410/799
ti
o ¢
49/125+
T
-p Q
1/1�
�
p 77/137
a' v
41/39
r r �
a
N o
MM
c"J
T
T
O
o
'�-93/102
1123/92
L0/0
'CD
J
rn �
•978/889
�
,N ti
� o r
1862/629
®o
�
1.45/330
�
�
� N
N 10,
X64/92
o 0
`o
X21/50
o
co
�
,`305/291
� _
�
� _
� �
N >
CW
�
y >
78/152
� a' �
76/152
� �
� �
822/1044-►
�M
� `o
519/9631
C ¢
0
172/0
56/5741
"25
��
`o -
:p ¢
�
�
�
m
�
105/164
r v N
�
87/162}
� �
(p397/955�
rn
N
O
T
�
I'L45/50
'267/154
"�0/0
00
coM
1148/944
' �
�
,�
r N N '
t 154/909
®
.t 146/889
CD 0
rn
«� v coi
�
rn N o
X1/5
°��' �
0 0 0
�6/17
o�
o�
� i 4►
,`299/226
_
Cn �
.� i �►
lI1 �
r
.0 >
W
156/330
I'
62
98/126
812/1221-►
� �
� ¢
623/1567-►
N
� ¢
61811519
267/156
r
z;; N
98/215
^
U-)111/3231
T
00
W
T
V. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
V. A SITE ACCESS
The proposed project benefits from access to several master planned roadways. Madison
Street , Monroe Street, and Avenue 60 bisect the project site. Avenue 58 is adjacent to the
northern site boundary. Avenue 62 currently terminates at the project site and will be
extended adjacent to the southern site boundary in the future to serve the Travertine Specific
Plan. Site access is adequate to serve the future traffic demands associated with proposed
project.
V. B CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE AND IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS
Roadway capacity has been defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over
a given roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic condi-
tions. By comparison, levels of service are a relative measure of driver satisfaction, with
values ranging from A (free flow) to F (forced flow). Levels of service (LOS) reflect a
number of factors such as speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, vehicle delay,
freedom to maneuver, driver comfort and convenience, safety and vehicle operating costs.
Peak hour traffic creates the heaviest demand on the circulation system and the lane config-
uration at intersections is the limiting factor in roadway capacity; consequently, peak hour
intersection capacity analyses are useful indicators of "worst-case" conditions. The
relationship between peak hour intersection capacity and levels of service is provided in
Appendix 2 (Table A-1) for unsignalized intersections and Appendix 4 (Table A-2) for
signalized intersections.
The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan circulation policies require a minimum
Level of Service "C", except that a Level of Service "D" could be allowed with Board of
Supervisors' approval in urban areas only at intersections of any combination of major
street, arterials, expressways, or conventional State Highways within one mile of a
freeway interchange and also at freeway ramp intersections. Level of Service "D" would
only be allowed in those instances where mitigation to Level of Service "C" is deemed
impractical.
Existing 1999 Traffic Conditions
None of the existing key intersections in the project vicinity are controlled by traffic
signals. Figure III -1 indicates where stop signs control traffic at the fourteen existing key
intersections.
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
The measure of effectiveness for unsignalized intersections is average total delay per
vehicle. The 1994 update to the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB Special Report 209)
includes an unsignalized intersection operational methodology which is the basis for
determining unsignalized intersection delay. The existing unsignalized key intersections
were evaluated with the methodology outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM). A general discussion of this methodology is included in Appendix 2.
V-1
The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) package is a direct computerized implementation
of the 1994 HCM procedures, prepared under FHWA sponsorship and maintained by the
MCTrans Center at the University of Florida Transportation Research Center. HCS Release
2.1d was employed to assess the unsignalized key intersections in the project vicinity.
Computerized HCS worksheets for the unsignalized intersections analyzed are included in
Appendix 2.
Existing average total delay per vehicle values and the corresponding levels of service for
the fourteen unsignalized key intersections are provided in Table V-1, assuming existing
lane geometrics. As shown therein, all of unsignalized key intersections are operating at
level of service (LOS) C or better during both morning and evening peak hours, except
one.
Thirteen of the fourteen unsignalized key intersections are currently operating at level of
service (LOS) C or better during both morning and evening peak hours. Average
intersection delays range from 0.1 to 8.7 seconds per vehicle at these key intersections.
The movements with the worst delay at these intersections are operating at LOS C or better
(with average delays ranging from 1.9 to 10.0 seconds per vehicle).
The intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 was found to provide LOS F operation
during the morning peak hour and LOS C during the eevening peak hour. This intersection
appears to currently warrant signalization. Once a traffic signal is installed, the peak hour
LOS will be acceptable at this intersection.
Trak Signal Warrants
The justification for the installation of a traffic signal at an intersection is based on the
warrants adopted by Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration. There are 11 types
of traffic signal warrants including one for minimum vehicular volume, interruption of
continuous traffic, minimum pedestrian volume, school crossings, progressive movement,
accident experience, systems organization, a combination of warrants, a four-hour volume
warrant, a peak hour delay warrant, and a peak hour volume warrant.
The installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the warrants is
met; however, the satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily sufficient justification in and
of itself for the installation of signals. Delay, congestion, approach conditions, driver
confusion, future land use or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment
beyond that which could be provided by stop signs must be demonstrated. Improper or
unwarranted signal installations may cause: (1) excessive delay; (2) disobedience of the
signal indications; (3) circuitous travel on alternate routes; and (4) increased accident
frequency.)
Rural volume warrants (70 percent of the urban warrants) apply when the 85th percentile
speed of traffic on the major street exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or a rural area, or
when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community with a popula-
tion under 10,000. All other areas are considered urban and urban warrants should apply.
Planning level signal warrants (in terms of daily traffic volumes) were checked for the
unsignalized key intersections for 1999 peak season conditions. Rural warrants were
applied because the existing speeds of traffic on the major streets are greater than 40 mph.
As shown in Appendix 3, one intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 50) appears to
currently meet planning level daily signal warrants.
1. Caltrans; Traffic Manual; Revised 3/1/95; pg. 9-1 and 9-2.
V-2
�w
cl
U
wA
mU
¢¢
aaw
aa¢
¢¢
¢¢
�(4
D
rnry)
Lncoo
p
00
00
0000
00
00
00
as
as
as
as
as
as
as
a�
a
I
VJ
O
O O
v1 N
h r.
M M
ll1 ON
r-
-N
00
\Oh
tr;
N^
MM
.O
z�
�
o
CCc#")
V=)VM)
0
O
U
Q)
U
wU
mw
¢¢
¢Q
¢¢
¢¢
¢¢
X
W
fn Cn
co
fn Cn
00
V] ai
00
00
00
00
fn
00
p
a,a
as
as
as
as
as
as
C
.O
U
"la
v
U
N 00
wiin
M N
O O
66
N^
^
Q
'C
N
O
ISI
7
7
G
7
C
7
�
G
C
C
C
G
C
N
Q
¢
¢
Q
¢
¢
Q
O
0
C
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
0
X ,Y
)
ca
V] M cd
y
Cn cC
N y
Cn cd
N y
of V
U y
4, iy
N y
ca
N yy
En cd
=Q-Ip
%
r- 0E)
Gilles
CQIa
=(tea
CGra
Ci1+pr
w¢a
�a
ba
O
as
�a
O
ba
4-.
�w
cl
N
W
w
C0 = U
zV)
�o
y � x
c 'A C-
e,,) o C
col
v� N
Qpo
cd
O C
u� U
v
C\
II � —
� � Q
Dari
I�
``cn
QQ
PUU
rood
alcsl
QQ
dd
dd
-.'u
j000
V) V)4
)
00
VJ V]
00
V) V)
00
V1 V)
00
Con E
00
V)
00
as
a,a
a,a
as
as
as
as
�
Q a
00 r.
kn
N
rt M
C-
V1
s+
M
00 6
z
C7,
>
C\
C -1O
O
O
ppqq
ZLn
pq p�
ppqq
p� p�
4
.y
V)En
"[3
O
U
�
.
dd
vaoa
aid
dd
dd
Qd
QQ
0
V) V)
00
V) V)
00
V) V]
00
V) 0
00
V] V1
00
En V)
00
V) V)
00
as
as
as
as
as
as
aa,
O
>
U
H
C
NN
I'D 00
N^
OIC
NN
N00
^O
i
o
.b
00
O
v1
N
vt
v1
p
00
O
�D
U
O
Q
•�
�Y,�
N
NY,�
`�C,�
NY,y
NY
NY aC
cz
Ga. o.
as
as
V) ami
wa
as
as
co
as
C0 = U
zV)
�o
y � x
c 'A C-
e,,) o C
col
v� N
Qpo
cd
O C
u� U
v
C\
II � —
� � Q
Dari
Year 2004 Ambient Conditions
Traffic Signal Warrants
Planning level signal warrants (in terms of daily traffic volumes) were checked for the
unsignalized key intersections for 2004 peak season conditions without the proposed
project. Rural warrants were applied because the speeds of traffic on the major streets are
expected to be greater than 40 mph. As shown in Appendix 3, eight intersections appear to
meet planning level daily signal warrants based upon year 2004 non -site (ambient) volumes
including:
Jefferson Street @ Monroe Street @ Madison Street Ca
• Avenue 52 • Avenue 50 • Avenue 54
• Avenue 54 • Avenue 52 • Airport Boulevard
• Avenue 54 • Avenue 58
One of these intersections (Monroe Street @ Avenue 54) is projected to provide acceptable
levels of service for year 2004 non -site traffic volumes without signalization.
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
Tables V-2 and V-3 provide the delay values and levels of service at the key unsignalized
and signalized intersections, respectively, for year 2004 conditions with and without the
proposed project. The non -site traffic volumes included 45 percent (5/11) of the
cumulative traffic (excluding Vista Santa Rosa because Madison Street was not expected to
be extended by the year 2004).2 The lane geometrics assumed for the year 2004 at all key
intersections are shown in Figure VI -2.
As shown in Tables V-2 and V-3, all of the unsignalized key intersections will provide
LOS B or better operation in the year 2004. The movements with the most delay at the
unsignalized key intersections are projected to experience LOS C or better, with average
total delays of up to 13.3 seconds/vehicle.
Signalized Intersection Analysis
The signalized key intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or
better) in the year 2004 prior to the addition of site traffic. The intersection with the longest
average stopped delay is Jefferson Street @ Avenue 50 during the evening peak hour (with
an average of 22.1 seconds/vehicle which corresponds to LOS Q.
Year 2004 Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Traffic Signal Warrants
Planning level signal warrants (in terms of daily traffic volumes) were checked for the
unsignalized key intersections for 2004 peak season conditions with the proposed project.
Rural warrants were applied because the speeds of traffic on the major streets are expected
to be greater than 40 mph. As shown in Appendix 3, five intersections appear to meet
planning level daily signal warrants based upon year 2004+project (total) volumes
including:
The 45% factor was determined from 5111, since 2004 is 5 years from 1999 and buildout of the
cumulative developments was assumed to occur by the year 2010, which is 11 years from 1999.
V-5
N
E-�-
7D
C
r
Lis
V)
O
a
r
p 3 °'
6, y
0c�
U O M 3
O y A 7
Q y O t
� x
�yw� fN3.
� O
t: o V «+
s N
goy
•� o O c
OA1N �
o c p
p 0 a C_
U C U
u, c � U
c c
•�zos
N 4,
t �0 p
N _
•� O v� 'U
0°'07
c° II •c
U • � y M
a ' o ami c
a
qtr,¢
zo¢�
3
a ctw
°'��a
b Z
o �x
C
O�OCi
Q 0 a
opo -0 o O
C c:
> -U
C
cz
+
A cz
0 0
02
y=
¢¢
u
o�
zz
zz
U
U
U
'JS
00
00
�N
z
W) c
m0
pgIM
agpq
AU
u
L�
rA Ln
p0
00
00
00
a
o0
3
aQ
Qa
Upq
`J
u
0�
00
00
A
00
00
V1
00
c�
qq 0.1
Cq al
qq Gq
t� U
Pq pq
00
0
C)0
0
Q00
N
C�
C�
N
r m
ON 110
.o kn
o6
O`
o6,,6
3
a
>
p� pq
Z z
W W
W W
z
•off
¢¢
¢a
aa¢
¢¢
aa¢
co
00
00
00
0o]
U
w,
o
�
o o
o 0
o o
@J o oLM
@J o 0
�
Baa
Gwa
Baa,
"'aa.
�'aa
EL4
ca
Lis
V)
O
a
r
p 3 °'
6, y
0c�
U O M 3
O y A 7
Q y O t
� x
�yw� fN3.
� O
t: o V «+
s N
goy
•� o O c
OA1N �
o c p
p 0 a C_
U C U
u, c � U
c c
•�zos
N 4,
t �0 p
N _
•� O v� 'U
0°'07
c° II •c
U • � y M
a ' o ami c
a
qtr,¢
zo¢�
3
a ctw
°'��a
b Z
o �x
C
O�OCi
Q 0 a
opo -0 o O
C c:
> -U
C
cz
+
A cz
z�
z
z
z
o = i 0
z O�OY
cd
r- eq
00[�
¢¢
U
^ N
O O
z z
do
z z N ti
O U
� 0
cIJ
f) V)
C/)
00
f/1 fA
00
V) U)
00
C/1❑�
00 II M M
O g]
00
1In
NO
ooC�
r
a�
O
ao
°
OO 'C s
..r
_
3.0
NWS O
=
¢aa
Q¢
¢¢
¢¢
¢¢
;�
00
00
00
00]
p0 oo�
aj c
cc11
M
=GQO.�
-5Z J
�o
00
00
¢¢
00
¢¢ -.:s a
��
zz
�0
zz �Z >
e�
0�
M Cf)
N
O O h N
0. r.
3 a�
o o
> 0
��qq
�q ppqqCd
z
Z�
W W
ca
z(
o 00�
Q¢
¢¢
¢¢.
z caU
f
00
00
¢Q
00¢Q
zsL�
zz
zz ;�
y
TIlO
M1.4
No
� ro TVJ
¢
_� �O
❑
; 3 'n n
N T o \
C
00
�p
U,
O
¢
u
t)7
C u
>
>
Q==
@1
¢=�
�% �
@���
=55 MW -0
❑
0 0
0 0
0 0
O O
N
> O
En
y �
oaO
oa
O
oa
v
oa
a A Va 13
az
0
0o
0 0
o0.1 0 0
Qd
Z2
zz
Z4
zz
z¢ zz
zz
C
a
Cd
�
J
N �
Q,
O^
O V
�O
ON
O�O� NOS
Q'a
^o
crn
oo --Ln
zz
bA U
> U
U U
U as
PG U
G7 GG
d GG
w as
as d
V) (n
U)
In
f) rA
U) Vi
cn fn
Vi cn
O
a
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
V100
00 M
00M
�c�O
OHO
l�
00\0
00 [�
��o
1D 00
rI�q
�"R
I000
U
O O
0 0
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
ti
3
�
O� 00
rn 0�
C14
bA jI—
C14
U U
U W
pa Fq
pa pq
d a
PG G4
0
Encn
V
V) U)
cn
Eno
Qay
00
00
00
00
00
00
zz
_i
N,UU
v1
NN
V1
[— %n
N
Qd
fl.Lti\
00 Q\
V1
tn\C
It
It V1
zz
aU,
o0
00
00
00
00
00
6
Z
C5
M MPI
a Q
ON
�o't
Om
tf� 1.6
My
[-z 1.O
zz
bA U
N N
�
I
y
N
U
b
Q
U
O
O
N
p
00
cbo
.-
s..�
V•1
V•1
V)
W
V1
C
C
C
C
Op,
C
p
>
>
>
7d
>
Q
Q
>
0
@i O
c
�zx
xx
Oxx
0
uxx
0
0
wxx
uxx
Y
.L.. 4 •Y
.1C ,Y
rL, �L ,Y
?C ,Y
�L, SC ,SC
1.7 'Y V
C�
C/] N y
N y
CO)cC
0 y
N y
cts
V N
N y
U N
=ap
caa
14caw
caa
w?a.
0
a
0
.14a
0
`na
0
`tia
�?¢a
.?a
az
0
C
zz
zz QQ
cz
Q) a)
Q�
N',1:
... r- 00—
06
bA
> U
Q �
a.i
�
PG �
Pq PU
al PQ
00
00
00
00
00
00
s
27,
a�
Q
O
Q
01)
N
pU
�
vv�i
O O
°�>
0
a
U
o
c�
•�° F -I
o
,-.
o 'r
o�
0�
pp U
> U
�
Q
C
O
O
tn
�N
bA
a? -b4 -Y.
N
Monroe Street @ Madison Street @
• Avenue 54 • Resort Village
• Airport Boulevard • Avenue 60
• Avenue 58
Three of these intersections are projected to provide acceptable levels of service based upon
year 2004 total traffic volumes without signalizativn (Monroe Street @ Airport Boulevard,
Monroe Street @ Avenue 58, and Madison Street @ Avenue 60).
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
With the addition of project -related traffic, all of the unsignalized key intersections will
provide LOS C or better operation in the year 2004, as shown in Table V-2. The initial
phase site traffic will cause the peak hour LOS in the year 2004 to drop at three of the ten
unsignalized ley intersections analyzed. The movements with the most delay at these
intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better, with one exception (that will
experience LOS D operation).
Signalized Intersection Analysis
The measure of effectiveness for signalized intersections is average stopped delay per
vehicle. The 1994 update to the Highway Capacity Manual includes a signalized intersec-
tion operational methodology which is the basis for determining signalized intersection
delay. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) package is a direct computerized imple-
mentation of the 1994 HCM procedures. HCS Release 2.4d was utilized to evaluate the
one key signalized intersection in the project vicinity.
The 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) signalized intersection capacity and level of
service methodology addresses the capacity and level of service of intersection approaches
as well as the level of service of the intersection as a whole. The analysis is undertaken in
terms of the ratio of demand flow rate to capacity (V/C ratio) for individual movements
during the peak hour and the composite V/C ratio for the sum of critical movements or lane
groups within the intersection. The level of service is determined based upon average
stopped delay per vehicle.
Average stopped delay is the total time vehicles are stopped in an intersection approach
during a specified time interval divided by the volume departing from the approach during
the same time period. It does not include queue follow-up time (i.e. the time required for
the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in- queue position).
A critical V/C ratio less than 1.00 indicates that all movements at the intersection can be
accommodated within the defined cycle length and phase sequence by proportionally
allocating green time. In other words, the total available green time in the phase sequence
is adequate to handle all movements, if properly allocated.
It is possible to have unacceptable delays (LOS F) while the V/C ratio is below 1.00 (when
the cycle length is long, the lane group has a long red time because of signal timing and/or
the signal progression for the subject movements is poor). Conversely, a saturated
approach (with V/C ratio >_ 1.00) may have low delays if the cycle length is short and/or the
signal progression is favorable. Therefore, an LOS F designation may not necessarily
mean that the intersection, approach or lane group is overloaded and LOS A to LOS E does
not automatically imply available unused capacity.
w
The morning and evening peak hour levels of service were determined for the signalized
key intersections with the methodology outlined in the 1994 HCM. A brief discussion of
this methodology is provided in Appendix 4 in conjunction with the corresponding LOS
criteria and HCS worksheets. The peak hour intersection delay, volume -to -capacity ratios,
and levels of service for key intersections that will be signalized by the year 2004 are
provided in Table V-3.
As shown in Table V-3, all ten of the signalized key intersections are projected to operate at
acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during peak hours with or without the initial
phase of the proposed project. The peak hour level of service will drop at three of the ten
signalized key intersections, once site traffic is added to the street system. Two signalized
key intersections will experience a drop from LOS A to LOS B (Madison Street @ Airport
and Monroe Street @ Avenue 54). One key intersection (Jefferson Street @ Avenue 54)
will experience a drop from LOS B to LOS C.
Year 2010 Ambient Conditions
Traffic Signal Warrants
Planning level signal warrants (in terms of daily traffic volumes) were checked for the
unsignalized key intersections for 2010 peak season conditions without the proposed
project. Rural warrants were applied because the speeds of traffic on the major streets are
expected to be greater than 40 mph. As shown in Appendix 3, five intersections are
projected to meet planning level daily signal warrants based upon year 2010 non -site
(ambient) volumes including:
Monroe Street @ Madison Street @
• Airport Boulevard • Avenue 50
• Avenue 58 • Avenue 52
• Avenue 60
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
Tables V-4 and V-5 provide the delay values and levels of service at the key unsignalized
and signalized intersections, respectively, for year 2010 conditions with and without the
proposed project. The non -site traffic volumes included all of the traffic associated with
buildout of the cumulative developments. Year 2010 lane geometrics assumed for all
intersections are shown in Figure VI -3.
As shown in Table V-4, the unsignalized key intersections will provide LOS A operation in
the year 2010 prior to the addition of site traffic. The movements with the most delay at the
unsignalized key intersections are projected to experience LOS B or better, with average
delays of up to 5.7 seconds/vehicle.
Signalized Intersection Analysis
The signalized key intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or
better) in the year 2010 prior to the addition of site traffic. The intersection with the longest
average delay is projected to be Jefferson Street @ Avenue 50 during the morning peak
hour (with an average of 20.8 seconds/vehicle of delay which corresponds to LOS Q.
V-11
N
zz
zz
zz
zz
X000
�
a
4)
J�
Z
Z
Z
o0
C's o
00
00
00
EnC/)V)V
00
00
U) V)
00
1. CIS
00
N00
O
N N
cd �
W Ga
Q Q
q�
oo
Qa
¢Q
00
"
a�
3 N
zz
zz
cnV)
o
�
z
00
¢Q
¢¢
U`'�
00
Q¢
¢¢
z z00
00
z z
N
tn
00
I--1
(V N
�
V
U
W
V
U
Q
>~
Q
OVA
O
�
�
a>
p C
p 0cn
O O
v�aa
v
v)aa
Baa
o a
oa
OQ
oa
N
cd
O
C
cz
c>1
L--1
O
x
U
a
O
7o
GJ
N
c�3
r
on
0
0
N
s-,
y
c
zz
zz
z�
zz
zz
u u
�o
UMN
M
NN
C14 IC
'tul
> U
d �
UU
UU
mu
UU
UU
UU
O
En Cl)
Encn
V)cn
En Cl)
EnEn
V)cn
0000
00
00
00
00
as
as
as
as
as
as
N
uU
CNN
en
en tr)
W) kr)
O\m
��
OM
��
��
r �
N00
��
��
a.C?
U
o0
00
00
00
00
0
(1) a)
-- 00
NW�
O V1
[�
hll�
NIS
Q�
X00.•
OO
00M
bb 6
N --�
N N—
N N
— N
d �
u
u
u
u
pgpq
O
CIO v)
V) cn
DO v)
cn v)
V) En
cn
0000
00
00
00
00
as
as
as
as
as
as
O
co t-
co
V) V)
r 00
N u U
�
O N
N
oo
\O
o0
00
00
00
0C
00
o�
Q
0o
o
�o
-� f
r
o �o
C> r-
��
�,�
0
V
N
r.
..
> N
�
Q
o
'
U
cn
ON
O
iN
cu
G
@i 7 a
7 7
G 7
@� G G
G 7
'x.z
yxx
yxx
�xx
�xx
�xx
C
y
0 A
`) M
C/)
C/] co
N N
M ccl
w N
V) cd m
. N
cd cz
r& N
V)
=. N
A
N
.,
G
GW p„
G
Gr.
G. p„
0
0
0
c
¢z
�z
zz
¢z
zz
zz
UA>
ODD
"OO
dd
nr
h�
NN
bA U
d�
pq pq
U W
pq d
U pq
U U
U U
CIO)
f/]
V] rn
(A V)
M fn
V) V)
V) C)
O
a
00
00
00
00
00
00
as
as
as
as
as
as
00
O\ \D
kn en
ON ON
N �
N
00
kn
N �O
�O M
O o
��
a,�
�O�
U
o0
00
00
00
00
00
3
A
O
M M
N M
V100
�O\
01��
�N
-
N
bA U
aS
d
dW
R1pq
dCq
u
u
Ln
d d
v) vn
M (n
v) m
00
00
zz
00
00
00
U
UU
VV1
N
tn't
Vy
dd
z z
•.•M
`D
N
co
0000
00
00
00
oc
0
z>
z z
M
00 ON
.�.
bA �
d �
y
Qi
U
d
bo
o
o
W)
Ua o�
@o�
Ua oo
Uoo
o
@JO
�o
�o
x
ixx
as
Baa
ca R,
P,6
=wa
as
cC
b
tQ
ct
S -r
a�
Q
O
cd
rad
OO
M
N
a
�,
zz
zz zz
¢¢
zz
zz
�o
U
Q�
MIS
SON
N[�
QOM
z z
z z
N
o o a�
d�
cn
U U
GQ m
w
U W
W W
0
COO cn
00
v1 V]
00
Vi
00
C-1 V)
00
V1 V)
00
V1 C*�
00
a
as
as
as
as
as
as
ON [—
o N
00 0
00
M
r- M
It
O
[� �n
AD O
o —
;
n�
roo
noo
VU
00
00'
co
00
00
00
0
M N
� oo
yn
N O
bb
U U
R1 PG
P1 Cq
00
00
0o
zz
zz
as
as
as
r.-.
u
\O 00
r-
01 'ct
r�
Vl tr)
M(
cf
Ntn M
O O
z
zz
C O
C O
c
O
�\
c a�
^
00 N
Cq
zz
zz
bA
a.)
-
N
U
�
d
bA
U
�
aico
x
@)
0
00
C
CO
C
C
C
Q
N
Q ` Ir
Z
/<§�
4,i
�FO
�%MMO
0�M0
CC
lJ 0 h00�
�J Yr�O�.� �0.I
\/�O F0
�0
Wd�
F0
U) U NV)
N U
V] U y
as
V) U N
C� U Cd
b U
daa
o�a
o�a
o�a
„A•a
o�a�.
„aw
o�a
•a�a
Year 2010 Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Traffic Signal Warrants
Planning level signal warrants (in terms of daily traffic volumes) were checked for the
unsignalized key intersections for 2010 peak season conditions without the proposed
project. Rural warrants were applied because the speeds of traffic on the major streets are
expected to be greater than 40 mph. As shown in Appendix 3, three intersections are
projected to meet planning level daily signal warrants based upon year 2010+project (total)
volumes including: Monroe Street @ Avenue 60, Monroe Street @ the North Primary
Housing Village Access, and Avenue 60 @ the Village Commons Access.
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
With the addition of site traffic, the unsignalized key intersections will provide LOS A
operation in the project buildout year 2010, as shown in Table V-4. The movements with
the most delay at these intersections are projected to operate at LOS B or better.
Signalized Intersection Analysis
As shown in Table V-5, the signalized key intersections will operate at acceptable levels of
service (LOS C or better) in the year 2010 with or without site traffic. The peak hour level
of service at six of the eighteen key signalized intersections are projected to change with the
addition of project -related traffic. The intersection with the longest average delay is
expected to be Monroe Street @ Primary Housing Village access located north of Avenue
60 during the morning peak hour. This intersection is projected to have an average delay of
24.4 seconds/vehicle under year 2010+project conditions, which corresponds to LOS C
operation.
Level of Service Summary
Table V-6 summarizes the morning and evening peak hour LOS findings at each of the key
intersections with each development scenario. As shown therein, acceptable levels of
service are projected to occur for all scenarios, provided traffic signals are installed when
warranted and roadway improvements consistent with Figures VI -2 and VI -3 are phased to
coincide with projected increases in traffic volumes. These roadway improvements are
generally consistent with the master planned cross-sections.
V-16
Table V-6
Level of Service Summarya
Key Intersection
1999
Peak Season
2004
Ambient
2004
+Project
2010
Ambient
2010
+Project
Jefferson Street
- Avenue 50
F/Cb
C/C
C/C
C/C
C/C
- Avenue 52
BB
CB
CB
C/C
C/C
- Avenue 54
A/A
BB
B/C
BB
B/C
Madison Street
- Avenue 50
A/A
A/A
A/A
C/C
C/C
- Avenue 52
A/A
A/A
A/A
C/C
C/C
- Avenue 54
A/A
BB
BB
BB
C/C
- Airport Boulevard
A/A
A/A
AB
A/B
B/B
- Avenue 58
A/A
BB
BB
BB
CB
Monroe Street
- Avenue 50
BB
BB
BB
C/C
C/C
- Avenue 52
B/A
BB
BB
C/C
C/C
- Avenue 54
A/A
A/A
BB
C/C
C/C
- Airport Boulevard
A/A
B/A
C/C
BB
BB
- Avenue 58
A/A
A/A
AB
BB
BB
- Avenue 60
A/A
A/A
A/A
A/A
BB
Madison Street
- Resort Village Access
NA
NA
B/A
NA
B/A
- Avenue 60
NA
B/A
CB
AB
CB
Active Adult Village Access
- Avenue 60
NA
NA
A/A
NA
BB
Monroe Street
- N. Primary Housing Access
NA
NA
NA
NA
C/B
- S. Primary Housing Access
NA
NA
A/A
NA
A/A
- Active Adult Village Access
NA
NA
NA
NA
A/A
- Avenue 62
NA
A/A
A/A
A/A
A/A
a. Format is AM/PM peak hour Level of Service.
b. This intersection warrants signalization and will operate at acceptable levels of service when signalized.
21id
VI. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
VLA Site Accessibility
The project has adequate access to serve the proposed land uses. No improvements
beyond those shown in the Riverside General Plan Circulation Element (within
unincorporated Riverside County) or in the La Quinta General Plan (within the City of La
Quinta) are required to accommodate site traffic at LOS C or better.
VLB Traffic Impacts
The following are the circulation impacts associated with the proposed project:
1. The proposed project represents an amendment to an approved Specific Plan and
will reduce the site trip generation by approximately 20%.
2. The trip generation associated with the initial phase (year 2004) of the proposed
project would total approximately 8,840 daily trips, of which 719 would occur
during the morning peak hour (237 inbound and 481 outbound) and 868 would
occur during the evening peak hour (540 inbound and 327 outbound).
The trip generation associated with build -out (year 2010) of the proposed project
would total approximately 37,520 unadjusted daily trip -ends, of which 2,840
would occur during the morning peak hour (904 inbound and 1,936 outbound) and
3,839 would occur during the evening peak hour (2,270 inbound and 1,569
outbound).
4. The primary source for traffic increases in the project vicinity will be nine
cumulative projects, which will generate a total of 93,660 daily trips by the year
2010 (approximately 3.4 times the proposed project's daily trip generation).
5. All of the key intersections are currently controlled by stop signs. Ten of the key
intersections will require traffic signals to serve projected year 2004 total traffic
volumes. Eighteen of the twenty-one key intersections will require traffic signals
under year 2010 conditions with build -out of the proposed project and nine
cumulative projects (as shown in Table VI -1). One of the key intersections
currently requires signalization, and three of the eighteen traffic signals required by
the year 2010, are for control of site access locations.
6. All of the key intersections are operating at LOS B or better with the existing lane
geometrics shown in Figure VI -1. Figure VI -2 shows the minimum lane
requirements for acceptable levels of service at the key intersections for the initial
phase of the proposed development and cumulative development through the year
2004. As shown therein, most of the key access roadways (including Monroe
Street and Madison Street) can remain two-lane facilities.
7. The minimum year 2010 intersection lane requirements shown in Figure VI -3 can
be accommodated within the master planned cross-sections, with minor exceptions
near some intersections. For example, the south leg of the intersection of Madison
Street and Avenue 54 may need to flare at the intersection, or a reduced parkway
section may be necessary to accommodate the dual northbound left -turn lanes and
dedicated northbound right -turn lane.
VI -1
r..l
O U
L
M
O
G
O
cl
�
� O
.0
N ++
F
cz
Q
3
C,4 p
U
� O
O� cz
~ I,^L)
VI
•
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
�
�
b
i+
0
It
0
w
OCA
lf)
Vi
ii
Vi
tr)
L
Q
C
C
�
A
❑
C
p
S�
p
t~
Sx
Q
FFF-
Cl)
Q
CD
k%
E
«f
C/5
k:
E§
3 >
—
� 0—
o%
�
\a
�
t
J<
�
�
�
o�
�CZ d
}
�
�
i7
�
72
�
E
.
7 §
� \
« §
3 \
x
W
f�
� �
�
�
Cf)
_
k2
kt
�
�
7§
\ �
ek
2
e$
§ o
§a
�
\ \ § \
� '
t
-
�
� ,
E
�I
± 2 2
_
E)
7 §
§ \
e §
@ �
/ � � /
�
$«
/
�
t
[«
�
CL §
0 o O /
k_$
g
I
�
72
\ 2
�
7 Cl)
7 §
§ E
CD= -i
/ /
/«
�
§k
�
ƒ CC ( \
�
O
�
/
/§ $
u & w
k @
'75
/\
� - ƒ
--
/
m
�
}
�
k@
co
k
.[
. 7 §
k \
e §
\ \
t
./
<
ca�
�
co
W
,
— — CO
FF 17, CD
U
i
CO CD
C�
C
/N
Vcc
t 2 m
N C
1 co
>co J
CD CD
O
O
N
LL czcz CD
4 Q
J J C
L Co
J tm
d cm cm
O O
CD = H
O
C C
O O
O O O
LO to
N
C y
CD
J C
co
N �
~ F-
L
C Q J
O O J d
U > >
cnN
C w w
L
J
0o
v
C75 a) CD
655
CD
ca CL! CC
LO
00 T
o�
r
W
W
c O o c
> o
cQ cQ
' T
c c c� m Q
> o
OQ c >
r N Q
m
� cn � cn s
c c m o m a
N � � —► � cn
T T
d 10
� d � O N >
� � s
O d d a
O > O
Q C �
T � W
T T
d
N �!
7
d N
fn >
Q
� Q �
Q
M
c -70,
T
�
� �
�
N 117
`
� O
O
d
Cn
N
C0
U
-6
4-
a)
C%j
r-+
=!
CD
�
N CO
^0
W
co EL
0
C
�
CO
T
Co
J
>41L
4 L
� O
N
cn
c
N
cz
-714
1T
^�
W
^o'
h V
W
L
41
L
cm
W
U-)
a)
CC
cn
m o
fn
� a
�
c¢
�
c �
�
N
------�
O
ccn
LO
T
T
J J C
41L
4 L
� L Co
j Q J
C>
2! -C7
LM
O)
057
Cl)
N
)>
C/
CL
O O
7
O _ _
L
~ O O
co
CL d a
T
T
0 0 0
a
'W 't
4 L
I
4
cm
5CSO
� U.)
�
d
�
.rn
d
�`
N
>
-0 d
M
d
C d
as C
J co
r
T
C J
�
�
U
L � �
M
T
T
¢
L ~
LMJ
L�-
4
C CC N
U > L >
7 =O •7
N
� U-)
llO
d CD
'75d
�
d
(n 7
C
d
� 7
C C
c W H W
O a)
�
J'
T I L�J
41L
*a)
J L
z tm
00
i
C�,
T L.0
co
LO
o�
)
in aLo
in
r
a c
W
co
M
r
T
VI.0 Off -Site Improvements Needed
Figure VI -1 depicts the existing lane geometrics. Only one intersection, Jefferson Street @
Avenue 50, currently requires signalization to provide acceptable levels of service. None
of the key intersections require additional lanes to provide acceptable levels of service (LOS
C or better) for current traffic volumes.
Figure VI -2 illustrates the minimum lane requirements to accommodate year 2004 traffic
volumes at acceptable levels of service (with or without the proposed project).
Intersections which require signalization under 2004 no -project conditions were generally
shown with left -turn lanes along the links with sizable traffic volumes to provide space for
the turning vehicles to queue outside of the through travel lanes.
Figure VI -3 shows the minimum lane requirements for acceptable levels of service at the
key intersections upon build -out of the proposed development and cumulative development
(year 2010 conditions). As shown therein, Madison Street will need to be extended from
Avenue 54 to north of Avenue 50. In addition, Madison Street will need to be extended
from Avenue 62 to Avenue 60 to provide access for the Travertine Specific Plan. Madison
Street will need to be fully improved as a 4 -lane facility along its entire length through the
study area.
Monroe Street will require widening to a 4 -lane facility from a point south of Avenue 54 to
a point north of Avenue 50 to provide adequate levels of service in the year 2010. In
addition, Avenue 50, Avenue 52, and Avenue 54 will require improvements to their master
planned cross-sections in the vicinity of Madison Street and Jefferson Street by the year
2010 (as shown in Figure VI -3).
Planning level daily traffic signal warrants were checked for the unsignalized key
intersections in the study area, as shown in Table VI -1 and the worksheets in Appendix 3.
One intersection, Jefferson Street @ Avenue 50, appears to warrant signalization with
existing peak season traffic volumes. Eight additional key intersections off-site will require
signalization by the year 2004 to accommodate the proposed project and cumulative
development.1 Four additional key intersections off-site will require signalization by the
year 2010 to accommodate the proposed project and cumulative development.2
VLD Compliance With General Plan Circulation Policies
The proposed circulation system is generally consistent with the Riverside County
Circulation Element. A comparison of the roadway classifications on-site under the
Riverside County General Plan and the Coral Mountain Specific Plan Amendment #1 is
provided on page III -2 and in Table III -2. The project appears to comply with the General
Plan policies (as shown in Appendix 5). See Appendix 5 for the response to each
Riverside County General Plan Policy.
VLE CMP System Improvements Needed
There are no CMP roadways in the study area.
1. One of the eight intersections requiring signalization by the year 2004 is Madison Street @ Avenue 58..
The site occupies one of the four corners at this intersection.
2. The intersection of Monroe Street and Avenue 60 will require signalization by the year 2010, with or
without the project, and was assumed to be on-site although the site occupies only three of the four
corners at this intersection.
VI -4
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
VILA Site Access/Circulation Plan
The proposed development is served by a grid of master planned roadways as shown in
Figure II -1. The primary project access is to the north along Madison Street, Jefferson
Street and Monroe Street. Access to the east is provided along Avenue 50, 52, 54, 58, 60,
62, and Airport Boulevard. Access to the west is provided by Avenue 50 and 52.
The Coral Mountain Specific Plan focuses site traffic through five major entry points. As
shown in Table VI -1, three of the five major entries will require signalization upon project
buildout, and two will be controlled by stop signs. All of the internal site access roads will
have adequate capacity with two through travel lanes.
The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential circulation impacts
associated with the proposed project and site access.
1. Specific design standards for internal streets shall be consistent with County street
requirements for residential loop streets and residential cul-de-sacs.
2. The proposed internal circulation layout shall be subject to the review and approval
of the County Transportation Department during the development review process to
insure compliance with County minimum access and design standards.
3. Intersection spacing on-site shall comply with County of Riverside standards.
4. All internal streets shall be fully constructed to their master planned cross-section as
adjacent on-site development occurs.
5. Sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed on-site as specified by the County.
6. Clear, unobstructed sight distance shall be provided at all internal street
intersections on-site.
7. The project proponent shall provide (at a minimum) the lane geometrics shown in
Figures VI -2 and VI -3 at the site access locations in conjunction with adjacent
development.
8. The project proponent shall install a traffic signal when warranted at the intersection
of: (1) the Resort Village access @ Madison Street, (2) the Active Adult Village @
Avenue 60, and (3) the north Primary Housing Village access @ Monroe Street.
9. The project proponent shall apply for an amendment of the Riverside County
Circulation Element to redesignate portions of Madison Street and Avenue 60 to be
consistent with the roadway widths shown in the Specific Plan. t In addition, the
proposed transition between Madison Street and Avenue 60 will impact the access
for the parcels located at the existing intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 60.
Although most of these roadways lie within the Coral Mountain Specific Plan area,
1, Although the Coral Mountain Specific Plan shows Avenue 62 as a Secondary Highway, a two-lane
cross-section appears to be adequate to serve year 2010 total traffic volumes (6,420 ADT). Since this
link is not on the Riverside County Circulation Element, the project proponent should consider revising
the Specific Plan to show Avenue 62 as a Collector Street adjacent to the ,project site.
VII -1
the rights-of-way of these roadways extends across parcels that are not part of the
project site.
10. The project proponent shall participate in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) Program and the County Traffic Signal Mitigation Program in an effort to
make their "fair -share" contribution to future roadway improvements within the
project vicinity.
VII.B Roadway Improvements
A number of roadway and traffic signal improvements will be required throughout the
study area, as detailed in Figures VI -2 and VI -3 and Table VI -1 to provide adequate
capacity for the proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan and nine cumulative projects. The
project should participate in any improvements of areawide benefit on a "fair share" basis
based upon any established fee programs (e.g. Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee), or be
responsible for the implementation of site specific mitigation required by Riverside County.
VII.0 Transportation System Management Actions
The California Environmental Quality Act specifies that mitigation measures be identified
which would further reduce the impacts of a project, even though the measures are not
incorporated in the project. This allows local decision makers to decide whether or not the
additional measures are warranted. Transportation System Management (TSM) actions fall
into this category inasmuch as they would further reduce project -related impacts but are not
incorporated in the project as proposed. The County of Riverside could require a TSM
Plan as a condition of approval. Such a plan would include those measures which are
feasible on-site.
However, the proposed project is located near the southern edge of development in the
Coachella Valley. With the anticipated intensity of development in the area, TSM measures
may be ineffective and difficult to implement. Since year 2010 total traffic volumes can be
adequately served by the master planned roadways, TSM actions do not appear to be
needed.
VII.D Other Considerations
The Resort Village is located south of Avenue 58 on both sides of Madison Street. The
proposed project includes a grade separated vehicular crossing that connects both sides of
the Resort Village. This crossing is located south of the proposed Resort Village access on
Madison Street. When the intersection of the Resort Village access @ Madison Street
requires signalization, the bridge needs to be designed such that approaching motorists
from the south can see the traffic signal.
If the proponents of the Travertine Specific Plan pursue plans to upgrade Madison Street
south of Avenue 60 to a 4 -lane master planned roadway, provisions should be made at the
intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 61) to accommodate projected traffic volumes.
These provisions may include dedicating adequate roadway width at the intersection,
including: (1) a free-flow southbound right -turn lane, (2) an acceptable minimum
horizontal radius on Madison Street (south of Avenue 60) consistent with a higher roadway
classification, and (3) adequate spacing between future signalized intersections on either
side of Avenue 60. A determination of the ultimate development potential for the land
south of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan is critical to reserving adequate right-of-way for
Madison Street south of the proposed project.
VII -2