The URL can be used to link to this page

Traffic Impact Analysis Comments 2019-12-231 Nichole Romane From:John Kain <jkain@urbanxroads.com> Sent:Monday, December 23, 2019 4:58 PM To:Garrett Simon; Nicole Criste (Contract Planner) Cc:Consulting Planner; Steve Libring; Mike Rowe; Paul Depalatis; Geri Bone; Bryan McKinney; Ihrke, Bill; Marlie Whiteman Subject:RE: Master Project 2019-0004 TIA Comments Attachments:Draft UXR Responses to City Comments (12.23.2019).pdf Importance:High ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Project and City teams – Based upon the December 18 conference call, I have prepared a draft set of responses (attached) to the December 12 TIA comments prepared by Nicole Criste. Since our draft responses generally outline a way forward, I would appreciate “directive feedback” regarding these responses before Urban Crossroads again confers with the City and their consultants regarding the next traffic analysis steps. For me, “directive feedback” means to suggest specific text changes to these draft responses, as opposed to offering broad questions or introducing new topics. In particular, please review the land use quantities which are already included in the TIA for the “east of Madison” Specific Plan area. As these future land use quantities will presumably now be folded into the Project, we need to verify the numbers. Don’t hesitate to contact me with questions or concerns. John Kain (949) 375‐2435 From: Garrett Simon <gsimon@meriwetherco.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 8:43 AM To: Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com> Cc: Nicole Criste <Ncriste@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Libring <SLibring@willdan.com>; Mike Rowe <mrowe@msaconsultinginc.com>; Paul Depalatis <pdepalatis@msaconsultinginc.com>; Geri Bone <gbone@innovacounsel.com>; John Kain <jkain@urbanxroads.com>; Bryan McKinney <Bmckinney@laquintaca.gov>; Ihrke, Bill <bihrke@rutan.com> Subject: Re: Master Project 2019‐0004 TIA Comments Thank you. Invite and conference call info have been sent. Add Good, Garrett Garrett Simon 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80301 Phone - (970) 596-6642 2 On Dec 17, 2019, at 6:43 AM, Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com> wrote: Garrett, Our team can make an 11 AM call on Wednesday. Please send call in number information to Bryan, Steve, Bill and me (all copied here). Thanks, Nicole Nicole Sauviat Criste Principal <image001.png> TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.® 42635 Melanie Place, Ste 101  PALM DESERT, CA 92211  (760) 341-4800  FAX#: 760-341-4455  E-Mail: ncriste@terranovaplanning.com From: Garrett Simon <gsimon@meriwetherco.com> Date: Monday, December 16, 2019 at 2:50 PM To: Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com> Cc: Nicole Criste <Ncriste@laquintaca.gov>, Steve Libring <SLibring@willdan.com>, Mike Rowe <mrowe@msaconsultinginc.com>, Paul Depalatis <pdepalatis@msaconsultinginc.com>, Geri Bone <gbone@innovacounsel.com>, John Kain <jkain@urbanxroads.com> Subject: Re: Master Project 2019‐0004 TIA Comments Nicole, Thank you for the quick response. I would like to have Geri participate due to her history with the Specific Plan and ensure we are all on the same page. I would propose the following times: Wednesday ‐ Between 10:15‐12 Friday ‐ Anytime before 11:00. Add Good, Garrett Garrett Simon 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80301 Phone - (970) 596-6642 On Dec 16, 2019, at 2:27 PM, Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com> wrote: Garrett, 3 I am available on Wednesday morning of on Friday. However, I believe that it would be wise to include Steve Libring, the City’s traffic engineer in the call. I have looped him in here, and ask that he chime in as well. Also, I have been advised that if you include your counsel in meetings and calls, I need to check with the City Attorney to include him as well. If Geri will be attending, please let me know, and I will coordinate with him as well. Thanks, Nicole Nicole Sauviat Criste Principal <image001.png> TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.® 42635 Melanie Place, Ste 101  PALM DESERT, CA 92211  (760) 341-4800  FAX#: 760-341-4455  E-Mail: ncriste@terranovaplanning.com From: Garrett Simon <gsimon@meriwetherco.com> Date: Monday, December 16, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Nicole Criste <Ncriste@laquintaca.gov> Cc: Mike Rowe <mrowe@msaconsultinginc.com>, Paul Depalatis <pdepalatis@msaconsultinginc.com>, Geri Bone <gbone@innovacounsel.com> Subject: Re: Master Project 2019‐0004 TIA Comments Resent‐From: <Ncriste@laquintaca.gov> Nicole, I had a chance to review your comments this morning and would like to set up a call to discuss, as I believe I have done a poor job of explaining our project. I believe with better clarification, we will address your comments, which should also help with completion of your review of the Specific Plan and associated documents. Please let me know a couple times that work for you this week. Add Good, Garrett Garrett Simon 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80301 4 Phone ‐ (970) 596‐6642 www.meriwetherco.com On Dec 12, 2019, at 1:37 PM, Nicole Criste <Ncriste@laquintaca.gov> wrote: Mr. Simon, The City’s comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis are attached. Please feel free to contact me at either 760‐777‐7132 or 760‐341‐4800 if you have any questions. Nicole <image001.png> Nicole Sauviat Criste | Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Ph. 760-777-7132 Website | Map hwy111LQ.com <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006 <MP2019‐0004 TIA COMMENT LTR 12.12.19.pdf> Date: December 23, 2019 Subject: Responses to December 12, 2019 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS COMMENTS FOR THE WAVE PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2019‐0002 ZONE CHANGE 2019‐0004 SPECIFIC PLAN 2019‐0003 (AMENDMENT 5 TO SP 03‐067) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2019‐0005 (TTM 37815) MASTER PROJECT 2019‐0004 The following responses are provided for the comments/questions from Nicole Sauviat Criste (City of La Quinta): Comments 1. The Specific Plan Amendment is for the entire Specific Plan area, on both the west and east sides of Madison Street. Please modify the TIA to look at the entire Specific Plan area, including the existing development’s trips and movements, the potential additional trips and movements from build out of the east side, and the new trips and movements on the west side. UXR Response ‐ Existing occupied land uses within the Specific Plan area are accounted for in the existing baseline traffic counts utilized in the TIA. ‐ Proposed development activities within the Specific Plan and west of Madison Street are defined as the Project in the TIA, based upon the following land use quantities: • Single Family Detached 496 DU • Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 104 DU • Resort Hotel 150 RM • Shopping Center 60 TSF • Wave Pool Facility 12 AC ‐ Future development activities associated with the Specific Plan area east of Madison Street are defined as cumulative projects in the TIA, as follows: • Shopping Center 40.7 TSF • Single Family Detached 110 DU ‐ The revised TIA will further evaluate the Specific Plan area east of Madison Street as part of the Project for appropriate analysis scenarios based upon consultation with City staff and their consultants. 2. The TIA project description is not adequate. Please modify to describe the following: a. The entirety of the Specific Plan area, as described in #1, above. b. The project description inconsistencies with the Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) and Phase descriptions: i. The project description adds up to 600 housing units, the phasing description 592 units, and the SPA 750 units. The TIA must analyze maximum potential development based on the SPA, and provide for existing and future units on the east side of the SPA. If the east side of the SPA is currently calculated in the cumulative project analysis, it must be removed from that analysis and added to the project analysis. Adjustments to the overall trip generation for the project will result. December 23, 2019 Page 2 12615 ‐ Response to comments (20191223).docx Please see related comments below. Please note that this will change not only total project numbers, but phase quantities as well. UXR Response ‐ The TIA Project description includes 600 housing units (496 single‐family and 104 multi‐family) as well as 150 resort hotel rooms. ‐ The TIA phasing description identifies a total of 600 units, where Phases 1 and 2 include 104 attached dwelling units and 26 detached dwelling units. Phase 3 includes the remaining 470 detached dwelling units. In addition, a 150‐room resort hotel is included for all Phases, for a cumulative total of 750 equivalent residential units at Project Buildout (Phase 3). ‐ Future development activities associated with the Specific Plan area east of Madison Street are defined as cumulative projects in the TIA, as follows: • Shopping Center 40.7 TSF • Single Family Detached 110 DU ‐ The revised TIA will further evaluate the Specific Plan area east of Madison Street as part of the Project for appropriate analysis scenarios based upon consultation with City staff and their consultants. c. Please include a description of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change proposed (including descriptions and exhibits of existing and proposed land use and zoning designations) to support the General Plan buildout analysis. UXR Response ‐ The TIA Project description, including 600 housing units (496 single‐family and 104 multi‐family) as well as 150 resort hotel rooms, is consistent for both Project Buildout (Phase 3) and General Plan Buildout analysis. ‐ The revised TIA will include a description of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change proposed (with exhibit indicating changes to land use and zoning designations), and it will further evaluate the Specific Plan area east of Madison Street as part of the Project for appropriate analysis scenarios based upon consultation with City staff and their consultants. d. The Specific Plan allows short term vacation rentals and calls them out specifically. Please include the number of short term rentals, and their associated trip generation characteristics (as opposed to standard residential units) in the analysis. UXR Response ‐ The TIA is based upon residential occupancies and corresponding trip generation from data sources required by the City (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition 2017). December 23, 2019 Page 3 12615 ‐ Response to comments (20191223).docx ‐ The revised TIA will include adjustments in residential trip generation if needed, based upon consultation with City staff and their consultants. e. Please add specificity regarding the wave pool use: i. It is unclear if the wave pool is to be open to the public. Based on trip generation and the accompanying description on page 35, it appears that this is not the case, since the only external trips anticipated are for “off‐site lunch, wave pool employees, etc.” If the surf pool is private, it must be so stated. If the surf pool is open to the public, the trip generation rate will need to be adjusted (see #3 below). UXR Response ‐ The surf pool is a private facility. ‐ Adjustments to trip generation are not anticipated to be required for the revised TIA. ii. The average number of attendees per day on a typical day, a weekend day and a special event day. UXR Response ‐ Estimated daily attendance will be discussed in the revised TIA. iii. There is no description of special events at the wave pool. Please describe the special events at the wave pool and analyze them in terms of attendees, distance of travel, typical duration, anticipated number of events per year, etc. A separate analysis of special events under EAP, EAPC and General Plan buildout conditions must be provided. Please note that if special events affect freeway interchange(s) (based on City and Caltrans standards), these interchange(s) will need to be analyzed. UXR Response ‐ Estimated special event attendance will be addressed in the revised TIA. Expansion of the traffic study area is not anticipated to be needed. ‐ Special event analysis scenarios will be added to the revised TIA, based upon consultation with City staff and their consultants. 3. The trip generation should be modified. As we discussed in our first meeting, Urban Crossroads completed a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for a resort surf wave pool project in 2019. The trip generation for that project was developed based on analysis of TIAs for similar projects in other locations, attendance at the surf pool, and other factors. That trip generation rate would appear to be more appropriate and should be used here, rather than using rates for a generic recreational facility. It may need to be modified based on the characteristics of the project, as described in #2, above. Additionally, the internal capture reduction must be explained (with supporting logic) based on the revised project description, since the TIA assumes a 50% internal capture reduction for the surf pool. Since it appears that the trip generation is currently too low, it is likely that an increased trip generation will generate a lower internal capture rate. Please December 23, 2019 Page 4 12615 ‐ Response to comments (20191223).docx note that if the trip generation rises, and additional outlying intersections are affected (per City standard), they will need to be added to the analysis. UXR Response ‐ For the proposed development activity within the Specific Plan and west of Madison Street, adjustments to the TIA trip generation are not necessary. The current Project trip generation in the TIA appropriately reflect travel activities associated with the private wave pool facility. ‐ The 2019 analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads for the Desert Wave project in the City of Palm Desert focuses on a public facility. The Desert Wave project was therefore scoped very differently than The Wave ‐ Coral Mountain, due to project differences (Desert Wave does not include residential or local commercial uses) and context differences (Desert Wave is a freeway oriented attraction). The Desert Wave TIA does not address project phases or long term future conditions. The Desert Wave TIA study area is much smaller than The Wave ‐ Coral Mountain TIA study area. The Desert Wave TIA includes an evaluation of special events (mid‐day Saturday), but only for near term cumulative conditions. Other than a direct project access entry intersection (Cook Street/Market Place Drive), the Desert Wave TIA identified no off‐site traffic impacts. 4. The TIA must demonstrate that there is sufficient separation, per City standards, between intersections (both signalized and unsignalized) on Madison Street and along Avenue 58. If minimum intersection spacing is not provided, its adequacy must be analyzed. UXR Response ‐ Along Avenue 58, west of Madison Street, two access points are proposed to serve the Project commercial site. The Project Access 1/Avenue 58 intersection is a full access configuration, located approximately 630 ft. west of Madison Street (centerline‐to‐centerline). For all future analysis scenarios, the Project Access 1/Avenue 58 intersection performs with an acceptable peak hour level of service and does not warrant a traffic signal. ‐ Project Access 2 intersection is limited to right‐turns in/out only (no left turns allowed), located approximately 310 ft. west of Madison Street (centerline‐to‐centerline). ‐ Along Madison Street, two access points are proposed to serve the Project. Madison Street/ Project Access 3 intersection is limited to right‐turns in/out only (no left turns allowed), located approximately 280 ft. south of Avenue 58 (centerline‐to‐centerline). ‐ The Madison Street/Main Access intersection is a full access configuration, located approximately 660 ft. south of Avenue 58 (centerline‐to‐centerline). For Project phases 1 and 2, the Madison Street/Main Access intersection performs with an acceptable peak hour level of service and does not initially warrant a traffic signal. However, a traffic signal is warranted at this location for Project phase 3, as well as the long range future (2040) scenarios. ‐ Study area intersections have been analyzed using the software package Synchro (Version 9.1). Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the intersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and queue length. The level of service and capacity analysis performed by Synchro indicate that the Project access locations adequately accommodate traffic queues with improvements recommended in the TIA. December 23, 2019 Page 5 12615 ‐ Response to comments (20191223).docx ‐ The revised TIA will further evaluate the separation between intersections based upon consultation with City staff and their consultants. 5. The TIA must clearly state that analysis was completed in conformance with Engineering Bulletin 06‐13 and reference the requirements of the Bulletin throughout. UXR Response ‐ The approved TIA scope states that the analysis is based upon the City of La Quinta Traffic Study Guidelines (Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, revised October 3, 2017). ‐ Engineering Bulletin 06‐13 is also referenced throughout the TIA. ‐ The revised TIA will further state that the that analysis was completed in conformance with Engineering Bulletin 06‐13. 6. At multiple locations in the TIA, the discussion regarding impacts to the intersection of Avenue 52 and Jefferson seems inadequate. The intersection is fully within the City of La Quinta, so any preference by the City of Indio would not be relevant here. Although La Quinta has in the past considered a single lane roundabout to be preferred, if the project requires a second lane to preserve acceptable LOS, this needs to be considered and analyzed, and mitigation measures proposed. (the nearby intersection of Jefferson / Ave 53 is proposed to be designed and built with 2 lanes NB and SB as example.) If feasible mitigation exists (which may include redesign of the roundabout), it cannot be assumed that failure will continue. Alternatively, if the TIA, when revised, still shows failure at this intersection, the project will be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, and the City will need to consider adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. UXR Response ‐ The TIA approach to the analysis of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 was dictated by the City of La Quinta on January 4, 2018 regarding the Travertine TIA in an email from Cheri Flores, as follows: “The proposed mitigation measure for the roundabout at Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 to restripe the northbound and southbound approaches on Jefferson Street to two lane approaches is not a feasible mitigation measure. The City completed a project in November, 2015, to restripe all the approaches to this roundabout to one lane because there was a pattern of drivers running into the roundabout. The restriping has addressed this problem and the number of collisions has declined. In order to implement additional lanes at the roundabout, it will have to be reconstructed.” ‐ We apologize for the erroneous reference to the City of Indio in The Wave – Coral Mountain draft TIA. ‐ Going forward, it is our understanding the at the City is now requesting a different approach to address the projected level of service issues at this intersection. ‐ The revised TIA will include recommended improvements at Jefferson Street / Avenue 52 for relevant analysis scenarios, based upon consultation with City staff and their consultants. 7. Assumptions regarding fair share allocations also seem inadequate. If the project triggers the need for a traffic signal, the required signal will be installed by the project, and reimbursement to the project’s December 23, 2019 Page 6 12615 ‐ Response to comments (20191223).docx developer may be provided for all but the project’s share by future developments, or CIP, or DIF, etc. Where this condition occurs, the fair share would be the project’s percentage of traffic on that intersection at the time the impact occurs, not at 2040 traffic conditions. If the intersection fails with or without project, the project’s fair share would be the difference between without and with project volumes at the Phase when the intersection fails, not at 2040 conditions. The TIA also needs to include an analysis of when in project phasing each signal is required, when it is funded and scheduled for installation in the CIP, and whether the CIP schedule will meet project needs. If these do not mesh, appropriate mitigation measures must be included in the TIA. UXR Response ‐ If the City is able to provide a schedule for the implementation of CIP improvements, then the revised TIA can address improvement timing issues as indicated above. ‐ The revised TIA will include fair share calculations for interim year scenarios as needed, based upon consultation with City staff and their consultants. 8. The TIA references “recommendations” which are actually mitigation measures. Please provide a Mitigation Measure section, use “shall” instead of “should,” and tie the construction of improvements to specific project events (initiation of grading, initiation of construction, issuance of 1st, 10th, 100th building permit/certificate of occupancy, etc.). Please also remove references to “when warranted”, as they represent deferred mitigation, which cannot occur under CEQA. UXR Response ‐ The revised TIA will include mitigation statements as needed, based upon consultation with City staff and their consultants. 9. The Main Project Access and Madison Street requires a traffic signal at General Plan build out. Please add a mitigation measure to that effect. UXR Response ‐ The revised TIA will include this mitigation statement, based upon consultation with City staff and their consultants. 10. Please provide a complete list of all improvements required by Phase, including road widening, raised medians, sidewalks, landscaping, additional lanes, traffic signals, interconnect, etc. in a tabular format, with trigger points (as enumerated in #8 above). The TIA must clearly show in one central location, all improvements required by the project and when they will be undertaken. UXR Response ‐ Exhibit 1‐3 of the TIA provides a complete list of intersection improvements required by Phase. ‐ The listed improvements by Phase will expanded as needed, based upon consultation with City staff and their consultants. December 23, 2019 Page 7 12615 ‐ Response to comments (20191223).docx 11. Throughout the document, please assure that references to the appropriate scenarios are made. For example, at the end of Section 1.5.3, which is a discussion of EAP conditions, EAPC is referenced. UXR Response ‐ The TIA text references will be reviewed to assure that references to the appropriate scenarios are made.