Traffic Impact Analysis Updated Scope Jan 30 - Feb 4 20201
Nichole Romane
From:Steve Libring <SLibring@willdan.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:42 AM
To:Nichole Romane
Subject:Fw: Updated Traffic Scope
** 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. **
per your request emails
From: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:11 PM
To: Nicole Criste (Contract Planner) <ncriste@Terranovaplanning.com>; Bryan McKinney <Bmckinney@laquintaca.gov>;
Steve Libring <SLibring@willdan.com>; Nicole Criste <Ncriste@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: RE: Updated Traffic Scope
সহ Will do.
Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760-777-7067
www.laquintaca.gov
From: Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 2:51 PM
To: Bryan McKinney <Bmckinney@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Libring <SLibring@willdan.com>; Nicole Criste
<Ncriste@laquintaca.gov>; Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Re: Updated Traffic Scope
** 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. **
Thanks Bryan!
Cheri, when you come up for air tomorrow, please review and let me know!
Thanks!
Nicole
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Principal
2
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: Bryan McKinney <Bmckinney@laquintaca.gov>
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 2:26 PM
To: Steve Libring <SLibring@willdan.com>, Nicole Criste <Ncriste@laquintaca.gov>, Cheri Flores
<clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: RE: Updated Traffic Scope
I’m good with these.
Bryan McKinney, P.E. | Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico ◦ La Quinta, CA 92253
760.777.7045
Email: bmckinney@laquintaca.gov
Website: www.la-quinta.org
From: Steve Libring <SLibring@willdan.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 1:04 PM
To: Nicole Criste <Ncriste@laquintaca.gov>; Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: Bryan McKinney <Bmckinney@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Re: Updated Traffic Scope
** 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. **
Bryan, let us know if you concur
Maybe clarify mitigation/fair share requirements as example in the scope so that there are no surprises? (Still
seems a little ambiguous and we'll argue with City later on these)
From: Nicole Criste <Ncriste@laquintaca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 12:34 PM
To: Steve Libring <SLibring@willdan.com>; Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: RE: Updated Traffic Scope
Steve and Cheri,
I have reviewed the scoping letter, and have the following comments:
1. The Specific Plan discusses “pop up villages” but does not define them. They are not listed in the TIA land uses.
Because I don’t know what is meant, I cannot assess whether they should be included in the TIA somehow. I will
3
point that out, and ask them to coordinate with MSA to determine whether they need to add these to their
calculations, either in the long term analysis or in the special event analysis.
2. I asked for an analysis of whether the proposed project intersections meet City separation standards (my
comment #4). They have not added it to the scoping letter. I will request that they do so.
3. I asked for an analysis of when each improvement is required (end of my comment #8). They are not clear that
this will be provided. I will request they do so.
4. I asked for a centralized list of all improvements and when they must be implemented (my comment #10). They
have not included that. I will ask that they do so.
5. In our meeting last week, Garrett Simon stated that special events would involve 7,000 guests. The scoping
letter cites 2,500 guests. I will point this out, and make it clear that this is a significant discrepancy, and if the TIA
stays at 2,500 guests, they will be conditioned to not exceed that number. If they were to, additional CEQA
review would be required as part of the Temporary Use Permit.
If these are acceptable to you, I will prepare an email, and include both of you in the chain. If you have additional
corrections, please provide ASAP. I would like to get them an answer by the end of the week (they submitted on 1/30, so
that would be just over a week).
Thanks!
Nicole
From: Steve Libring <SLibring@willdan.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2020 11:11 AM
To: Nicole Criste <Ncriste@laquintaca.gov>; Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Fw: Updated Traffic Scope
** 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. **
Is this what you were expecting, do we need to discuss, or have they addressed city's concerns?
Let me know if you need anything from me
From: Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 1:03 PM
To: Garrett Simon <gsimon@meriwetherco.com>
Cc: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Ihrke, Bill <bihrke@rutan.com>;
dcastro@laquintaca.gov <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>; John Kain <jkain@urbanxroads.com>; Mike Rowe
<mrowe@msaconsultinginc.com>; Paul Depalatis <pdepalatis@msaconsultinginc.com>; Nicole Criste
<Ncriste@laquintaca.gov>; Bryan McKinney <Bmckinney@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Libring <SLibring@willdan.com>
Subject: Re: Updated Traffic Scope
Thank Garrett, I have circulated to our Traffic Engineer and City Engineer, and we will be meeting next week to
review. We will provide comments as soon as possible.
As regards fair share calculations, they are usually tied to what triggers the impact. So, for example, if at the
opening of the hotel there is a need for a traffic signal, the fair share is based on the trips generated by the
hotel (and any residences that are part of that phase), and the mitigation measure in the traffic study and EIR
requires payment or installation prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the hotel. Urban
4
Crossroads is quite familiar with this type of analysis, and should be able to help in crafting the language. If
you would like to discuss further, please feel free to give me a call.
Nicole
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
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>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 12:37 PM
To: Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>
Cc: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Ihrke, Bill <bihrke@rutan.com>;
dcastro@laquintaca.gov <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>; John Kain <jkain@urbanxroads.com>; Mike Rowe
<mrowe@msaconsultinginc.com>; Paul Depalatis <pdepalatis@msaconsultinginc.com>
Subject: Updated Traffic Scope
Nicole and Team,
In follow up to our meeting last week and in response to the December 12, 2019 comments/questions from Nicole
regarding the draft TIA, I asked John and Marlie at Urban Crossroads to prepare a revised scope (see attached
pdf). Although the Project land uses, cumulative database, weekday trip generation estimates and trip distribution
patterns are not anticipated to change, the following revisions will be included in the updated TIA:
1. Clarification that the surf facility is a private facility, serving Project resort and residential land uses.
2. Analysis of special events at this location (attendance of not‐to‐exceed 2,500 guests per day arriving or
departing on Saturdays, up to 4 events per year). As shown on Table 6 of the attached scope, the Project is
anticipated to generate a net total of 8,932 trip‐ends per day on a Saturday during a special event with 906
vehicles per hour (VPH) during the arrival peak hour and 884 VPH during the departure peak hour.
3. In order to estimate background mid‐day Saturday peak hour volumes in the Project study area, weekday PM
peak hour counts will be adjusted. The adjustments will be based upon a sampling of four Saturday intersection
counts (between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM) in the study area.
4. The revised TIA will now include recommended improvements at Jefferson Street / Avenue 52 for relevant
analysis scenarios, based upon discussion with City staff and their consultants.
5. The revised TIA will include Project traffic share calculations for interim year scenarios (as opposed to
cumulative long range conditions), based upon Nicole’s request.
I would appreciate a timely review of this revised scope. If technical concerns arise, please let me know so that a
conference call can be arranged.
I would also like to discuss how the share calculations at each phase may be applied. Obviously the project share at any
point in time will vary, depending upon the occupancy of cumulative projects over time. Isn’t it most appropriate to
determine the project fair share based upon future projections with buildout of the project and other cumulative
5
projects? I would like to get John moving forward ASAP and we can concurrently discuss our concerns of how the
calculations are applied to our project.
Please Add Good,
Garrett Simon
970-596-6642
www.meriwetherco.com
Ofc: 1001 Dove St. Suite 260 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Main: 260 E. Baker St. Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
urbanxroads.com
12615‐06 Revised Scope.docx
January 29, 2020
Mr. Steve Libring
City of La Quinta
78‐405 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
SUBJECT: REVISED SCOPING AGREEMENT FOR THE WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN
REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Dear Mr. Steve Libring:
The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this scoping agreement for The Wave at Coral
Mountain (“Project”), which is located on the southwest corner of re‐aligned Madison Street at 58th
Avenue, in the City of La Quinta. Proposed development activities within the Specific Plan (west of
Madison Street) are 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
The preliminary land use plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1.
The average number of attendees per day on a typical weekday as well as a special event day will be
discussed in the revised TIA.
Our goal is to obtain comments from City of La Quinta staff, to ensure that the traffic impact analysis
(TIA) fully addresses the potential impacts of the proposed Project.
The remainder of this letter describes the proposed analysis methodology, Project trip generation, and
trip distribution on the surrounding roadway network. The following scoping assumptions have been
prepared in accordance with the City of La Quinta Traffic Study Guidelines (Engineering Bulletin #06‐13,
revised October 3, 2017).
Exhibit 2 depicts the location of the proposed project in relation to the existing roadway network. Project
access locations are listed below:
• Madison Street / Main Access (full access)
• South Access / Avenue 60 (full access)
• Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 (full access)
• Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 (right‐in/right‐out access)
• Madison Street / Project Access 3 (right‐in/right‐out access)
Mr. Steve Libring
City of La Quinta
January 29, 2020
Page 2
12615‐06 Revised Scope.docx
TRIP GENERATION
The Project is anticipated to be constructed in phases, with Phase 1 (2021) including resort (wave pool
and hotel uses), 104 attached dwelling units, 26 detached dwelling units, and 10,000 square feet of retail.
Project Phase 2 (2023) adds 22,500 square feet of retail. Project Phase 3 (2026) adds 470 detached
dwelling units and 22,500 square feet of retail.
In accordance with the City of La Quinta’s Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, the Project trip generation rates
to be used for the traffic impact analysis will be based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation manual, 10th Edition (2017). Trip generation estimates for the Project have been
determined by utilizing the published rates for the peak hour of the generator rather than for the peak
hour of adjacent street traffic, where possible.
Trip generation rates are presented on Tables 1 through 3 for Phase 1 through Project buildout
conditions, respectively. ITE trip generation rates for Single Family Detached Residential (Code 210),
Multifamily Housing (Code 220), Resort Hotel (Code 330), and Shopping Center (Code 820) are used. The
surf pool is a private facility. As indicated in the original approved TIA scope for this Project, trip
generation rates for the Wave Pool Facility from the San Diego Association of Governments recreational
park (developed) rates appropriately account for this private facility.
The project area land uses include a unique mix of commercial retail, resort, recreation and residential
uses, so reasonable assumptions regarding internal/pass‐by interactions between these uses are
included in the trip generation calculations. The wave pool facility will be utilized by hotel guests, but
outside trip generation is also included for things like off‐site lunch, wave pool employees, etc. Area
residents and visitors will use the commercial retail area facilities (which typically include merchandise,
service station and restaurant land uses). The total internal/pass‐by trip ends have been adjusted in a
manner to ensure that no “double counting” occurs before assigning the project trips to the roadway
network.
As shown on Table 1, Phase 1 of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 2,227
external trip‐ends per day on a typical weekday with 114 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the
weekday AM peak hour and 151 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour.
Table 2 shows trip generation for Phase 2 of the proposed Project, which is anticipated to generate a net
total of 2,778 external trip‐ends per day on a typical weekday with 123 external vehicles per hour (VPH)
during the weekday AM peak hour and 208 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour.
As shown on Table 3, at Project buildout, the site is anticipated to generate a net total of 6,994 external
trip‐ends per day on a typical weekday with 447 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday
AM peak hour and 638 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes that
will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and
surrounding regional access routes are considered to identify the routes where modified project traffic
Mr. Steve Libring
City of La Quinta
January 29, 2020
Page 3
12615‐06 Revised Scope.docx
would travel. The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site,
the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the arterial and regional freeway system.
The trip distribution patterns for the proposed Project residential and resort components are graphically
depicted on Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4 shows the trip distribution patterns for the proposed Project shopping
center components. The trip distributions have been developed based on RivTAM and local knowledge
in the vicinity of the Project site and refined to reflect the roadway network and the surrounding uses in
the vicinity of the proposed Project as they exist today and are planned for the future.
STUDY AREA
The traffic impact study area was defined in conformance with the requirements of Engineering Bulletin
#06‐13. Based on this criterion, anticipated trip generation and trip distribution, the following
intersections will be evaluated (see Exhibit 2):
ID Intersection Location ID Intersection Location
1 Madison Street at Avenue 58 12 Monroe Street at Avenue 58
2 Madison Street at Avenue 56 13 Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard
3 Madison Street at Avenue 54 14 Monroe Street at Avenue 54
4 Madison Street at Avenue 52 15 Monroe Street at Avenue 52
5 Madison Street at Avenue 50 16 Monroe Street at 50th Avenue
6 Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 17 Jackson Street at 58th Avenue
7 Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 18 South Access at Avenue 60 ‐ (Future Intersection)
8 Jefferson Street at Pomelo 19 Madison Street at Main Access‐ (Future Intersection)
9 Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 20 Project Access 1 at Avenue 58‐ (Future Intersection)
10 Madison Street at Avenue 60 21 Project Access 2 at Avenue 58‐ (Future Intersection)
11 Monroe Street at Avenue 60 22 Madison Street at Project Access 3‐ (Future Intersection)
In addition, the following roadway segments will be evaluated:
Roadway Segment
1 Avenue 58, west of Madison Street 4 Madison Street, south of Airport Boulevard
2 Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street 5 Avenue 60, west of Monroe Street
3 Avenue 58, west of Jackson Street 6 Monroe Street, south of Airport Boulevard
TRAFFIC COUNTS
Traffic count data were previously taken on August 15th, 2017, April 9th, 2019, May 7th, 2019, and
September 9th, 2019 during the AM peak period of 6:00 AM to 8:30 AM and PM peak period of 2:30 PM
to 5:30 PM. A 20% increase is applied to counts taken in August, 5% increase is applied to counts taken
in April, 10% increase is applied to counts taken in May, and 15% increase is applied to counts taken in
September per City of La Quinta’s EB#06‐13. Table 4 shows that the average AM/PM peak hour
intersection growth between 2017 and 2019 counts data at selected study area and nearby intersections
Mr. Steve Libring
City of La Quinta
January 29, 2020
Page 4
12615‐06 Revised Scope.docx
is approximately 2.66%. The additional 2.66% growth rate is applied to the study area intersections with
2017 counts to reflect 2019 conditions. Exhibits 5 and 6 identify the count data utilized for each study
intersection and illustrate the resulting Existing (2019) morning and evening peak hour intersection
volumes.
ADT volumes are estimated using the formula below for each intersection leg (consistent with 2018
Travertine Specific Plan TIA, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc.) and compared to the 2017 ADT’s with
2.66% growth to reflect 2019 conditions, where 2019 counts are unavailable.
Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 12 = Leg Volume
ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
Consistent with Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, the following analysis scenarios are proposed for this traffic
study:
Existing (2019)
Existing Plus Project (E+P)
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (E+A+P)
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects, with and without Project for each
of the following phases:
o Project Phase 1 (2021)
o Project Phase 2 (2023)
o Project buildout (Phase 3, 2026)
o Project buildout (Phase 3, 2026) – Special Event
General Plan buildout (2040) Without Project Conditions – establishes future year
baseline to evaluate the proposed Project
General Plan buildout (2040) With Project Conditions – represents future year baseline
traffic conditions with the proposed Project
In accordance with Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, improvements fully funded by the City of La Quinta’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will be assumed to be in place for long range future conditions.
Improvements fully funded by the City’s CIP, the Development Impact Fee Program (DIF) and the
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program (TUMF) are assumed to be in place for Opening Year
Cumulative conditions.
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA
Per Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, the following LOS criteria will be utilized for study area intersections:
Intersection Type
LOS Criteria
Signalized Intersection LOS “D” or better
All‐way Stop Controlled Intersection LOS “D” or better for all critical movements
Cross‐Street Stop Controlled Intersection LOS “E” or better for the side street
Mr. Steve Libring
City of La Quinta
January 29, 2020
Page 5
12615‐06 Revised Scope.docx
The City of La Quinta has established LOS “D” as the minimum level of service for its street segments.
PREFERRED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The study area intersections will be analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition
methodology. The parameters provided in Attachment 2 of Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 will be utilized
for the purposes of this analysis, unless directed otherwise.
CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
It is requested that the City of La Quinta Planning Department review the cumulative projects shown
on Exhibit 7 and listed on Table 5.
CUMULATIVE GROWTH VOLUMES
The background (non project) Opening Year Cumulative traffic projections will be determined by
interpolating between the existing traffic volumes and the year 2040 City and/or CVAG traffic
projections.
YEAR 2040 TRAFFIC FORECASTS
The Year 2040 forecast volumes are based upon an updated version of the Riverside County
Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) which became available in the CVAG region during 2016. It is
consistent with the SCAG draft 2016 RTP for the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) 2040
project. For 2040 conditions, RivTAM projections will be examined to determine additional growth
beyond the 2035 peak hour intersection volumes identified in the 2012 traffic study prepared by Iteris
for the La Quinta General Plan Update. Where necessary, the resulting 2040 volumes estimates will be
adjusted to achieve flow conservation, reasonable growth, and reasonable diversion between parallel
routes.
SPECIAL ISSUES
The following issues will also be addressed as part of the TIA:
Site Access Evaluation: Recommendations regarding site access and queuing analysis will be
included in the traffic study. It is anticipated that the project will be required to widen Avenue
58 frontage. Eastbound left turn capacity will be evaluated along Avenue 58 approaching
Madison Street. Project fair share participation in signal improvements will also be determined.
Jefferson & Avenue 52 Improvements: The revised TIA will now include recommended
improvements at Jefferson Street / Avenue 52 for relevant analysis scenarios, based upon
discussion with City staff and their consultants.
Interim Year Project Share Estimates: The revised TIA will include fair share calculations for
interim year scenarios (as opposed to cumulative long range conditions), based upon the City
consultant request.
Mr. Steve Libring
City of La Quinta
January 29, 2020
Page 6
12615‐06 Revised Scope.docx
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT): Consistent with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) updates
to CEQA guidelines which are responding to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), VMT estimates for the
Project will be calculated. Potential mitigation measures and estimated effectiveness in reducing
VMT in terms of percentage reduction of VMT for each measure will be identified in the traffic
study.
Special Events: The applicant anticipates the potential occurrence of special events at this
location involving attendance of not‐to‐exceed 2,500 guests per day arriving or departing on
Saturdays (up to 4 events per year). In order to estimate background mid‐day Saturday peak
hour volumes in the Project study area, weekday PM peak hour counts will be adjusted. The
adjustments will be based upon a sampling of four Saturday intersection counts (between 10:00
AM and 2:00 PM) in the study area.
Table 6 shows the Saturday Project trip generation during a special event based on 2,500 guests
per day at the Wave Pool facility and approximately 25% of the guests arriving or departing during
the arrival or departure peak hour. Weekend rates for other on‐site land uses represent typical
Saturday rates. As shown on Table 6, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total
of 8,932 trip‐ends per day on a Saturday during a special event with 906 vehicles per hour (VPH)
during the arrival peak hour and 884 vph during the departure peak hour.
Traffic management plan features will be identified for the typical Project special event (2,500
guests). Exhibit 8 shows a high‐level event operations planning framework which will also be
included in the revised TIA as part of the discussion of future traffic control plan refinements for
special events.
If you have any questions, please contact John Kain at (949) 336‐5990 or Marlie Whiteman at (949) 336‐
5991.
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
John Kain, AICP Marlie Whiteman, PE
Principal Senior Associate
JN: 12615 The Wave at Coral Mountain
Attachments
xc: Mr. Bryan McKinney
58th Avenue
Neighborhood
Commercial
Future
Low Density Residential (3)
Future
Low Density Residential (2)FutureLow Density Residential (4)
Low Density Residential (5)Madison Street60th Avenue
28.55 Ac.
46.61 Ac.
The Farm
49.21 Ac.
54.50 Ac.
37.66 Ac.
7.77 Ac.
±118 Units
±122 Units
±136 Units
±94 Units
Resort (5)
Back ofHouse
Pop-UpVillage 2
14.20 Ac.±41 Units
The Hotel
±63 Units
2.53 Du/Ac.
2.50 Du/Ac.
2.50 Du/Ac.
2.48 Du/Ac.
2.21 Du/Ac.
2.89 Du/Ac
Planning Area IX
Resort (4)
Resort (1)
Future
Planning Area VII
Planning Area VIII
Planning Area VIII
Planning Area VIII
Planning Area VIII
PA IX
Planning Area IX
TheBeach Club
Pop-UpVillage 3
Pop-UpVillage 4
Pop-UpVillage 5
The Farm
Village
3.18 Ac.
15.38 Ac.
8.24 Ac.
11.32 Ac.
8.41 Ac.5.90 Ac.
4.24 Ac.
6.82 Ac.
IRRI
G
A
T
I
O
N
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
IR
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
E
A
S
EM
E
N
T
IRRIGATION EASEMENTIRRIGAT
ION EASEMENT
IRRIGATION EASEMENT
PA X
53.56 Ac.
Open Space
Planning Area X
128
129
121
120
119
118
114
113
112
111
110
109101
100
99
98
97
96
95
93
117
89
88
87
86
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
43
42
41
40
39
38
44
45
46 47
4950
51
52
53
54
55
63
64
65
66
67 68
69
70
71
72
73
363534333231
7
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
4837
74
90
OS
Resort (3)
11.06 Ac.
Planning Area IX
(Includes "The Farm" and "The Farm Village")
Resort (2)
27.82 Ac.
Planning Area IX
The Wave
(Includes "Resort Residential" (Lots 27-89) and "The Beach Club")
(150 Keys)9.52 Ac.
(Resort Residential (Lots 91-131)
Open Space
The Hotel
Pop-UpVillage 1
3.40 Ac.
130
131
129
128
125
107106105104103102
124
123
116
115
108
94
92
91
1 2 3
4
5
6
8
9
142
135
140
146
145
144
147
139
132
133
134
136
137
138
143
148
149
122
OS
OS
OS OS OS
OS
141
150
OS
OSOS
OS
OS
OS
90The Hotel
OS
OS
OS
10
Low Density Residential (1)
44.09 Ac.±26 Units0.59 Du/Ac.
Planning Area VIII
91.15 Ac.
9.52 Ac.
27.82 Ac.
53.56 Ac.
44.09 Ac.
46.61 Ac.
37.66 Ac.
104 Units (Attached Residential)
150 Hotel Keys
N/A
N/A
26 Units (Detached Residential)
118 Units (Detached Residential)
94 Units (Detached Residential)
384.55 Ac. 750 Units
Resort (2) - The Wave
Open Space (Recreation)
Low Density Residential (2)
Low Density Residential (3)
Total
14.20 Ac.41 Units (Attached Residential)Resort (5) - Residential
54.50 Ac. 136 Units (Detached Residential)
49.21 Ac. 122 Units (Detached Residential)
28.55 Ac.63 Units (Attached Residential)Resort (4) - Residential
Low Density Residential (4)
Low Density Residential (5)
N/A
15.76 Du/Ac.
N/A
N/A
0.59 Du/Ac.
2.53 Du/Ac.
2.50 Du/Ac.
N/A
2.89 Du/Ac.
2.50 Du/Ac.
2.48 Du/Ac.
2.21 Du/Ac.
232.07 Ac.496 Units (Detached Residential)Low Density Residential Subtotal N/A
PA VIII
PA IX
PA X
LAND USE LEGEND
Land Use Area Units
Note:1.Planning Areas VII & IX will have a combined allowable retail area of 60,000 sf.2.All planning areas will distribute the overall total unit allowance based on market demand.
Density / AcrePlanningArea
7.77 Ac.N/ANeighborhood Commercial N/APA VII
Resort (3) - The Farm
Resort (1) - Hotel
11.06 Ac. N/A N/A
Resort Subtotal
Low Density Residential (1)
7
8
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 26 DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)220 104 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32
Resort Hotel 3305 150 RM 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.20 0.27 0.47 7.87
Shopping Center 820 10 TSF 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 12 AC 1.20 0.80 2.00 2.40 1.60 4.00 50.00
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 26DU5 1419161026245
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)220 104 DU 11 36 47 36 22 58 761
Internal to Retail/Resort (2) (3) (5) (9) (7) (16) (141)
14 47 61 43 25 68 865
Shopping Center 820 10 TSF 6 4 10 18 20 38 378
Pass‐By (25%)3 (1) (1) (2) (5) (5) (10) (95)
Internal to Residential/Resort (3) (3) (6) (4) (4) (8) (72)
20291120211
Resort Hotel 3305 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181
Internal to Residential/Retail (7) (8) (15) (11) (17) (28) (324)
34 7 41192443857
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 12 AC 14 10 24 29 19 48 600
Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort (8) (6) (14) (16) (12) (28) (306)
6 4 10 13 7 20 294
77 79 156 129 112 241 3,165
Internal Capture Subtotal (20) (20) (40) (40) (40) (80) (843)
Pass‐By (Shopping Center) (1) (1) (2) (5) (5) (10) (95)
56 58 114 84 67 151 2,227
4 Since ITE does not have trip rates for a wave pool facility, similar use based on SANDAG's recreation park (developed) peak hour and daily rates are utilized.
5 Since ITE does not have daily rate for a ITE LU 330 (Resort Hotel), daily rate has been estimated based on ITE LU 210 (Hotel) peak to daily relationship.
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Scope Rev.xlsx]Ph1
TABLE 1: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Daily
Residential External Trips
Trip Generation Results
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; RM = Occupied Room; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3 Pass‐By Source: Shops at Coral Mountain TIA, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (November 2009).
Shopping Center External Trips
Resort Hotel External Trips
Wave Pool Facility External Trips
Project Subtotal
Project Total External Trips
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
9
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 26 DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)220 104 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32
Resort Hotel 3305 150 RM 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.20 0.27 0.47 7.87
Shopping Center 820 35 TSF 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 12 AC 1.20 0.80 2.00 2.40 1.60 4.00 50.00
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 26DU5 1419161026245
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)220 104 DU 11 36 47 36 22 58 761
Internal to Retail/Resort (2) (5) (7) (10) (8) (18) (158)
14 45 59 42 24 66 848
Shopping Center 820 35 TSF 20 13 33 64 69 133 1,321
Pass‐By (25%)3 (4) (4) (8) (16) (16) (32) (330)
Internal to Residential/Resort (5) (4) (9) (8) (8) (16) (144)
11 5 16404585847
Resort Hotel 3305 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181
Internal to Residential/Retail (8) (8) (16) (13) (19) (32) (370)
33 7 40172239811
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 12 AC 14 10 24 29 19 48 600
Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort (9) (7) (16) (17) (13) (30) (328)
5 3 8 12 6 18 272
91 88 179 175 161 336 4,108
Internal Capture Subtotal (24) (24) (48) (48) (48) (96) (1,000)
Pass‐By (Shopping Center) (4) (4) (8) (16) (16) (32) (330)
63 60 123 111 97 208 2,778
4 Since ITE does not have trip rates for a wave pool facility, similar use based on SANDAG's recreation park (developed) peak hour and daily rates are utilized.
5 Since ITE does not have daily rate for a ITE LU 330 (Resort Hotel), daily rate has been estimated based on ITE LU 210 (Hotel) peak to daily relationship.
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Scope Rev.xlsx]Ph2
TABLE 2: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Daily
Residential External Trips
Trip Generation Results
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; RM = Occupied Room; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3 Pass‐By Source: Shops at Coral Mountain TIA, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (November 2009).
Shopping Center External Trips
Resort Hotel External Trips
Wave Pool Facility External Trips
Project Subtotal
Project Total External Trips
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
10
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 496 DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)220 104 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32
Resort Hotel 3305 150 RM 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.20 0.27 0.47 7.87
Shopping Center 820 60 TSF 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 12 AC 1.20 0.80 2.00 2.40 1.60 4.00 50.00
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 496 DU 94 273 367 308 184 492 4,682
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)220 104 DU 11 36 47 36 22 58 761
Internal to Retail/Resort (10) (20) (30) (40) (29) (69) (595)
95 289 384 304 177 481 4,848
Shopping Center 820 60 TSF 35 22 57 110 119 229 2,265
Pass‐By (25%)3 (7) (7) (14) (28) (28) (56) (566)
Internal to Residential/Resort (9) (7) (16) (21) (35) (56) (448)
19 8 27 61 56 117 1,251
Resort Hotel 3305 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181
Internal to Residential/Retail (14) (10) (24) (15) (21) (36) (416)
27 5 32152035765
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 12 AC 14 10 24 29 19 48 600
Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort (12) (8) (20) (26) (17) (43) (470)
224325130
195 356 551 513 385 898 9,489
Internal Capture Subtotal (45) (45) (90) (102) (102) (204) (1,929)
Pass‐By (Shopping Center) (7) (7) (14) (28) (28) (56) (566)
143 304 447 383 255 638 6,994
4 Since ITE does not have trip rates for a wave pool facility, similar use based on SANDAG's recreation park (developed) peak hour and daily rates are utilized.
5 Since ITE does not have daily rate for a ITE LU 330 (Resort Hotel), daily rate has been estimated based on ITE LU 210 (Hotel) peak to daily relationship.
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Scope Rev.xlsx]Ph3
TABLE 3: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Residential External Trips
Resort Hotel External Trips
Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Wave Pool Facility External Trips
Shopping Center External Trips
Project Subtotal
Project Total External Trips
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; RM = Occupied Room; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Daily
3 Pass‐By Source: Shops at Coral Mountain TIA, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (November 2009).
11
12
13
AM PM TOTAL AM PM TOTAL
1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 410 540 950 433 601 1,034
5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 1,148 1,371 2,519 1,116 1,375 2,491
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 307 418 725 322 477 799
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 740 835 1,575 799 821 1,620
Monroe St. / Avenue 62 163 188 351 151 188 339
2,768 3,352 6,120 2,821 3,462 6,283
2.66%
1 Source: Travertine Specific Plan TIA, April 2018. Prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc.
2 Existing count data were collected in April 9, 2019. In accordance with the City of La Quinta's traffic study guidelines, a 5% seasonal variation factor
has been applied to the April 2019 traffic count data.
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Scope Rev.xlsx]Summary_(Existing Comparison1)
TOTAL
AVERAGE AM/PM GROWTH
(to be applied to the remaining study intersections
with 2017 Counts to reflect 2019 conditions)
TABLE 4: EXISTING 2017 & 2019 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
COMPARISON SUMMARY
ID Intersection
Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Existing 20171 Existing 20192
14
15
16
LQ19
I3
I2
IW2
LQ29
I1
LQ28
IW1
LQ17
LQ6
LQ4
LQ7
LQ22
LQ13
LQ25
LQ11
LQ9
LQ31 LQ8
LQ15
LQ12 LQ18
LQ23
LQ27
LQ26
LQ32
LQ10
LQ24
LQ16
I4
LQ2
LQ14
I5
SITE
RC1MONROE STJACKSON STJEFFERSON STMADISONSTIN
D
I
O
BLV
D
50TH AVEWASHI
N
G
T
O
NSTAVENUE 52
AIRPORT BLVD
FRED WARING DR
62ND AVE
HIGHWAY111
AVENUE 46
EISENHOWER DRAVENUE 48
60TH AVE
AVENUE 50
52ND AVE
54TH AVEAVENIDA BERMUDASWASHINGTONSTIN
D
I
O
B
L
V
D
JEFFERSON STMILES AVE
58TH AVE
54TH AVE
RI
VI
E
R
A
62ND AVE MADISON STADAMS ST61ST AVE
60TH AVE
LIGA CLINTON STAVENUE 44
DUNE PALMS RDPGABLVD51ST AVE
REQUA AVE
AVENIDA RUBIO53RD AVE
55TH AVEWINGED
FOOTHJORTH STWARNER TRLO
DLUM D R
IROQUOIS DR BURR STDARBY RD
AVENUE 45
ME RION
H E R M I T A G E
MANDARINA
C A L I FOR N IA DRMI
SSION
D
R
WCLUB DRPARKAVEAVENUE 53
VIA SAV
O
NAAVENUE 49
WEISKOPF
ELLA AVE
FAZIO LNN
VILLA
G
E
D
R
DO CTOR CARREON BLVD
F A Z I O L N S CALHOUN STCREST AVE
CO
A
CHEL L A D R
JEREZA R A CENA
NEW YOR K A V E KINGSTON DR
YOUNGS LNUL R I C HDRA V EN ID A M O N T E Z U MA
ALBION DRQUAILRUNL
NAVENUE 43
FIRESTONECALLE QUITOVIAC A R M E L
GRANT DR
RUSTIC C A N Y O N D R
L
O
M
A
VIS
VIA PE S SARO
BAFFINAV
E
CALLE TEMECULA
GABLE DR
VIA TESORO
YAVAPA
MUIRFIELD DR
PLUM LN
ALMONTEDESERT GROVE DRLAG
O
D
R
VECINO WAY
PEARRY PL
ADAM'S LNLA QUINTA
INDIO
INDIAN WELLS
PALM DESERT
I3
LQ34
IW2
LQ29
I1
LQ33
IW1
LQ17
LQ6
LQ4
LQ7
LQ22
LQ13
LQ25
LQ11
LQ1
LQ9
LQ31 LQ8
LQ15
LQ12
LQ23
LQ18
LQ27
LQ26
LQ20
LQ10
LQ24
LQ16
I4
LQ2
LQ14
LQ3LQ21
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS
User Community
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 7: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAP
_N
12615 - CD.mxd
17
Page 1 of 2
# Project/Location Land Use 1 Quantity Units
2
LQ1 Desert Club Apartments Apartments 16 DU
LQ2 La Quinta Penthouses Condo/Townhouse 8 DU
LQ3 Mountain Village Residences Apartments 6 DU
Apartments 104.000 TSF
Medical Office 130.450 TSF
LQ6 Washington Apartments Apartments 26 DU
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 66 DU
Hotel 108 Rooms
Shopping Center 305.000 TSF
LQ8 Codorniz SFDR 142 DU
LQ9 Estate Collection at Coral Mountain SFDR 57 DU
LQ10 Villas at Indian Springs SFDR 15 DU
LQ11 Bellesera SFDR 320 DU
Luxury Hotel 140 Rooms
Condo/Townhouse 29 DU
Lifestyle Hotel 200 Rooms
Condo/Townhouse 66 DU
LQ14 American Tire Depot Automobile Parts 6.720 TSF
LQ15 Estates at Griffin Lake SFDR 78 DU
LQ16 Monterra SFDR 40 DU
LQ17 Andalusia at Coral Mountain SFDR 39 DU
LQ18 Floresta SFDR 82 DU
LQ19 California Desert Museum of Art Museum 18 TSF
LQ20 Walsh Urology Medical Office 1.09 AC
LQ21 Crabpot Restaurant 1.800 TSF
LQ22 Residence Club @ PGA West SFDR 11 DU
LQ23 Signature at PGA West SFDR 230 DU
LQ24 Casa Mendoza Expansion Restaurant 1.053 TSF
LQ25 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center Shopping Center 125.000 TSF
LQ26 Griffin Ranch Amendment SFDR 4 DU
LQ27 Andalusia Village SFDR 71 DU
SFDR 1,200 DU
Hotel 100 Rooms
SFDR 152 DU
Hotel 125 Rooms
LQ31 Silverrock Temporary Clubhouse Recreational Facility 3.886 TSF
LQ32 Canyon Ridge SFDR 74 DU
LQ33 Shops at Coral Mountain Shopping Center 40.7 TSF
LQ34 Coral Canyon SFDR 219 DU
LQ29 Centre at La Quinta
TABLE 5: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
City of La Quinta
LQ4 Mayer Villa Capri
LQ7 The Dune Palms Specific Plan
LQ12 SilverRock ‐ Phase I
LQ13 SilverRock ‐ Phase II
LQ28 Travertine
18
Page 2 of 2
# Project/Location Land Use 1 Quantity Units
2
TABLE 5: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
SFDR 230 DU
Equestrian Way Station 1.4 AC
IW1 TTM No. 37467 SFDR 18 DU
Condo/Townhouse 70 DU
Hotel 263 Rooms
Quality Restaurant 5.500 TSF
Health Club 38.000 TSF
Shopping Center 15.000 TSF
Restaurant 6.300 TSF
Retail 350.000 TSF
Office 200.000 TSF
Hotel 370 Rooms
Condo/Townhouse 516 DU
I4 La‐Z‐Boy Gallery Retail 15.600 TSF
I5 Polo Community Senior & SFDR 560 DU
1 SFDR = Single Family Detached Residential
2 AC = Acres; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Unit
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Scope Rev.xlsx]Cumulatives
I3 Polo Square
City of Indian Wells
IW2 Hotel Development
County of Riverside
RC1 Vista Soleada
City of Indio
I1 Jefferson and Hwy. 111
19
In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 0.50 0.43 0.93
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)2206 0.38 0.32 0.70
Resort Hotel 3105 0.40 0.32 0.72
Shopping Center 820 2.34 2.16 4.50
Wave Pool Facility ‐4
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 496 DU 248 213 461 248 213 461 4,732
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 220 104 DU 40 33 73 40 33 73 847
Internal to Retail/Resort (18) (40) (58) (53) (25) (78) (600)
270 206 476 235 221 456 4,979
Shopping Center 820 60 TSF 140 130 270 140 130 270 2,767
Pass‐By (26%) (35) (35) (70) (35) (35) (70) (719)
Internal to Residential/Resort (25) (33) (58) (35) (26) (61) (498)
80 62 142 70 69 139 1,550
Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 60 48 108 60 48 108 1,229
Internal to Residential/Retail (20) (28) (48) (24) (19) (43) (430)
40 20 60 36 29 65 799
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 2,500 Guests 260 14 274 14 260 274 2,084
Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort (42) (4) (46) (4) (46) (50) (480)
218 10 228 10 214 224 1,604
748 438 1,186 502 684 1,186 11,659
Internal Capture Subtotal (105) (105) (210) (116) (116) (232) (2,008)
Pass‐By (Shopping Center) (35) (35) (70) (35) (35) (70) (719)
608 298 906 351 533 884 8,932
4 Vehicle trips are calculated based on estimated number of guests during special events and vehicle occupancy of 2.4.
5 Saturday data for Hotel (ITE Land Use 310) has been utilized.
6 Since Saturday peak hour in/out ratio is not available for ITE Land Use 220, the in/out Saturday split for ITE LU 210 (Single Family Detached Residential) has been utilized.
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Scope Rev.xlsx]Ph3‐SE
9.54
8.14
8.19
46.12
Weekend Daily
Trip Generation Rates1
See Below
DU
DU
RM
TSF
Guests
Shopping Center External Trips
Resort Hotel External Trips
Wave Pool Facility External Trips
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; RM = Room; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3 Source: Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017).
Project Subtotal
Project Total External Trips
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
Weekend
Daily
Residential External Trips
Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
Arrival Peak Hour Departure Peak Hour
TABLE 6: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ‐ WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Units
2
Saturday Mid‐Day Peak Hour
20
12615‐06 Revised Scope.docx
EXHIBIT 8: EVENT OPERATIONS PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Source: Managing Travel for Planned Special Events Handbook: Executive Summary (June 2007) prepared by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
21