The URL can be used to link to this page

Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR Appendices 2022-03-08 CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Applicant: THE WAVE DEVELOPMENT, LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80301 Lead Agency: CITY OF LA QUINTA 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Preparer: MSA CONSULTING INC. 34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, California 92270 February 2022 CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Lighting Memo Appendix B.1 January 2022 Musco Lighting has had a strong commitment to the control of light. Over the past 40 years Musco has developed better ways to light sporting events, airports, and shipping ports, with LED, or light emitting diode fixtures. In addition to greatly reducing light spill and glare, Musco’s current light fixtures reduce energy demand and maintenance. LED produce a more focused and intense source of light than older technology, including the lights historically used to light parks and other recreation facilities as shown in the figure below. LED fixtures can be designed to focus LED light to provide adequate light while avoiding light overspill and minimizing glare. The figure below shows the evolution of Musco’s lighting design from the type of lights and fixtures typically used decades ago to the Total Lighting Control (TLC) for LED technology fixtures proposed for the Coral Mountain Wave basin. The TLC for LED fixture shown below has 3 LED fixtures at the top of the pole. Also shown to the right of the Musco TLC for LED fixture is the typical LED fixture from other companies. As shown, the TLC for LED fixture focuses the light down in a manner that prevents direct view of the LED lights. As noted at the bottom of this figure, these are photographs of light fixtures taken 100 feet from the edge of the field these fixtures are installed at. The amount of glare, measured in candela is also identified for each pole. MEMORANDUM Date: October 22, 2021 Subject: Proposed Lighting Design – Coral Mountain Wave Basin, La Quinta California From: Matt Pearson, Engineering Manager Tim Newendorp, Project Engineer As shown above, the newest LED technology is better than the Metal Halide technology from 2005 as it provides full cutoff of the light source from 100 ft from edge of the area being lighted. With the TLC for LED light fixture essentially no (7 candela) of direct light is visible 100 feet from the fixture. Other typical LED fixtures can generate direct light levels similar to, or more intense, than older metal halide light fixtures. The Bagdouma Sports Park in Coachella, contains a combination of light fixtures from Musco, including the 2005 lights and 1989 unshielded lights, with respective candela ratings of 11,858 and 21,400. As portrayed in this figure, these values far exceed the candela rating of the TLC for LED lights that will be used at the Coral Mountain Wave Pool, which are measured at 7 candela. Another major factor in controlling light is the mounting height of the light fixtures. Mounting height can help control both coverage of the area to be lit and cutoff of light from spilling over into adjacent areas. The figure below shows how light is cutoff from a fixture on an 80 ft pole similar to those proposed at Coral Mountain. Each fixture on top of the pole can be aimed as needed to cutoff light. As shown in this figure and in the previous figure, This picture above also shows that there will no light above the visor cut‐off line, resulting in no uplighting. As shown in this figure and the previous figure, light from the fixture is aimed well below the horizon line from the fixture, which is why little direct light is visible from these fixtures. The cut off in light from these fixtures results in a dark skies compliant fixture. To reduce light spill, the cut off angle is optimized by calculating the appropriate mounting height for the fixtures considering the distance from the pole the fixture needs to light. The proposed lighting plan for Coral Mountain Wave Pool includes two‐to‐four TLC for LED light fixtures on 80‐foot poles. A total of 17 poles are proposed around the wave basin, which will have a total of 70 fixtures. The full design of the lighting system is shown in Appendix B to the Draft EIR. The figure below shows how the lighting for the wave basin and off‐site glare will be controlled to avoid affecting any adjacent areas. As shown, the light is focused on the wave basin itself and is cut off from spilling into any adjacent area. If shorter poles were used, the light cut off angle would need to be increased to cast light across the wave basin. This would result in more direct light and glare being visible and not less. 80 foot poles are the optimal height to allow for adequate lighting of the wave basin while maximizing the cut off angle to minimize the visibility of direct light, avoid uplighting and light spill to adjacent areas. CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Musco Lighting Technical Memo Appendix B.2 January 2022 Page 1 TECHNICAL! MEMORANDUM!! DATE:&January 26, 2022! PROJECT:&Coral Mountain Wave Project SUBJECT:&Musco Lighting Test Test Logistics( A demonstration of the Musco LED lights, which are proposed to light the wave basin that is planned for La Quinta, was performed Wednesday, November 17th, 2021 from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM. There are 17 pole locations in the lighting design for the basin. Two locations were selected for the test, pole 8 and pole 16. These locations represent the light sources closest to Coral Mountain (P8), and closest to the nearest residential area (P16). The test fixtures for pole 8 were able to be staged at the exact location dictated in the project design, the fixtures for pole 16 were staged approximately 135' south of the original location due to access restraints. This placed the light fixtures closer to the residential area, not farther away. Pole locations for the project are seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Executive Summary The outcome of the test performed verifies the accuracy of Musco's light plotting software and validates the lighting plot for the full system, which shows no light overspill outside the wave basin area. Tests performed with the staged lights show baseline light levels 120' behind the fixtures. This means at 120' behind the fixtures there is zero light contribution from the Musco lights. Figure 1. Pole Locations on Property Page 2 The pole heights in the project design are 80'. With elevation changes due to excavation for the project taken into consideration, the test fixtures were set at a height of 74.2' at pole 8 and 71.2' at pole 16. This elevation change is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Elevation of poles Light Fixtures There are several fixture configurations used for the lighting design of the full system. Poles 1-7 have 6 fixtures, broken down into four 1200 Watt fixtures and two 600 Watt fixtures. Poles 8, 9, 16, and 17 have two 600 Watt fixtures. Poles 10, 12, 13, and 15 have three 600 Watt fixtures. Poles 11 and 14 have four 600 Watt fixtures. Note that the staging sites at P8 and P16 both have only two fixtures in the lighting plan for the actual project, meaning the output of light at these locations will be less than what was observed at the test. To test different configurations, the demonstration included running at four fixtures and running at two fixtures. To represent the worst case scenario for perceived light overspill, all light level readings were taken with four 1200 Watt fixtures on. Four fixtures were running for the majority of the test duration. The test locations were reduced from four fixtures to two fixtures at approximately 7:45 PM. At pole 8 lights were returned to four fixtures at approximately 7:50 PM. At pole 16 conditions were returned to four fixtures at 7:55 PM. The two fixture test was at the request of the KSWC personnel onsite. This was to gather data and recording of more realistic light levels for that location. Generalized fixture aiming angles for the project are shown in Appendix A. Figure 2. Test Pole Locations Page 3 Light Level Readings Light intensity can be measured with a light meter and described with the unit foot-candles, or FC. This unit is defined as one lumen per square foot, or one candela at a distance of one foot. Lux is the metric version of FC and describes one lumen per square meter. A lumen is a unit that measures the total quantity of visible light emitted by a source per unit time. A candela is the amount of light a source emits in a particular direction. Table 1 shows the conversion between foot-candles, lumens, lux and candela. Light Conversions 1 Lumen (lm)lm = cd x (2πsr) 1 Candela(cd) 1 Foot-Candle (FC) 1 Lux (lx) cd = lm ÷ (2πsr) lm = FC x Area in ft2 lm = lx x Area in m2 Horizontal light readings were taken at approximately 6:45 PM with fixtures turned off. Due to the light from the full moon, light levels in the area were measured consistently at 0.01 FC. At 7:00 PM lights were turned on at both locations. At approximately 7:15 PM light readings were taken at 30' intervals behind the pole locations. Readings ranged from 0.01 to 0.03 FC consistently at a distance of 90’ from the ground level plumb point of the fixtures. Four readings were taken on each side, and one reading was taken directly behind the fixtures, for a total of nine in each row. This test area extended a total of 120' to each side of the pole location. At a distance of 120’ from the plumb point of the fixtures, and 120’ to each side of the pole location, the readings were consistently at 0.01 FC. This is equal to the readings taken prior to lights being turned on. This indicates that there was zero light being contributed to those locations by the fixtures at 120' behind the pole. Spot readings taken in front of the pole location to measure light levels within the boundaries of the wave basin. The readings consistently matched the readings in the single pole lighting design provided by Musco software. This further verifies the accuracy of Musco's light plotting software and validates the lighting plot for the full system, which shows no light overspill outside the wave basin area. The single pole lighting plot is shown in Figure 4. This plot was generated with Musco software. The full system lighting plot is shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6, also generated with Musco software. Light level readings taken at the test match those generated by Musco, proving the accuracy of the full system plots. These light level readings are shown in Appendix B. Appendix C shows the full site with marked locations for where light levels drop below 0.5 FC and 0.01 FC. cd = 0.09FC x m2/sr FC = 10.76cd x sr/m2 cd = lx x m2/sr FC = lx x 10.76 lx = FC ÷ 10.76lx = cd x sr/m2lx = lm ÷ Area in m2 FC = 10.76 lm ÷ Area in m2 *sr = Steradians = solid angle of beam = 2π(1 - cos(θπ / 360)) where θ is the beam angle in degrees Table 1. Conversion table for lumen, candela, foot-candles, and lux. Page 4 Figure 5. Full System Light Plots Figure 4. Single pole Light Plot Page 5 Perceived Light Overspill( Light level readings proved no perceivable light overspill which is consistent with light plots for the entire system. This lack of overspill is further supported by photography taken of the test. Figure 8 shows examples of some of the photography taken the night of the test. Water Reflection Light reflection on stationary water has been studied extensively and has been taken into consideration with the current design. As shown in Figure 6, the reflectance is a function of light angle, with larger angles corresponding to a larger reflectance. Given the aiming angle and mounting height of the current design, shown in Figure 7, 10% or less of the fixture's light is reflected back into the atmosphere. Note that when mounting height decreases, as with a shorter pole, aiming angle will increase and create more light reflectance. There is no information available for light reflectance in turbulent water. Figure 6. Reflectance value given light angle Figure 7. Light angle of luminaire diagram Page 6 Figure 8. Photography of tests. Taken with 4 fixtures lit. Page 7 Appendix A Page 8 Appendix B Page 9 Appendix C CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Update Focused Bat Surveys Appendix D.3 January 2022 CARLSBAD FRESNO IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 Executive Park, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92614 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net November 3, 2021 Garret Simon CM Wave Development, LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Subject: Results of Focused Bat Surveys for the Proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Development Project in La Quinta, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Simon: This letter documents the results of focused bat surveys performed by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) for the proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project (project). The study area for the proposed project site comprises approximately 385 acres and is situated south of 58th Avenue and directly west of Madison Street in the City of La Quinta, in Riverside County, California. In order to determine whether the proposed project could result in potential adverse effects to bat species, a daytime bat-roosting habitat assessment was conducted to locate any suitable bat-roosting habitat within the study area. Follow-up nighttime acoustic and emergence surveys were performed in April and June 2021 at locations that were identified as having the potential to house roosting bats. An earlier version of this document (dated May 6, 2021) presented the results of the habitat assessment and the April 2021 maternity season nighttime surveys, along with preliminary recommendations to minimize potential adverse effects to roosting bats. This document has been updated to include the results of the June 2021 surveys and provides more comprehensive recommendations to minimize potential project-related adverse effects to roosting bats. BAT NATURAL HISTORY AND REGULATORY CONTEXT Bats that occur in Southern California are the primary predators of nocturnal flying insects and are largely adapted to a variety of habitats. Bat populations are generally declining throughout Southern California due to various factors, including loss of natural roosting and foraging habitats, exposure to pesticides and pathogens, and extermination (Miner and Stokes 2005). Because bats have low reproductive turnover (most species have only one young per year and only a few species have twins or multiple births) and high juvenile mortality, it can take many years for a population of bats to recover from any impacts that result in mortality or even a decrease in reproductive ability. As natural roost sites become scarcer due to urban development and changes in land use, the use of human-made structures (e.g., buildings) for roost sites by some bat species has increased as bats seek alternative roosting options. However, these human-made roosting sites are also highly vulnerable because bats may be driven out or killed once they are discovered occupying these structures. Therefore, as urban and suburban development occurs across the landscape, many of these areas may act as habitat “sinks”1 where bats may at first appear to be relatively common and may even be attracted to human-made structures, but then decrease in abundance over time as urbanization of that area continues (Miner and Stokes 2005). The protection of bat-roosting habitat, particularly habitat identified as maternity or nursery sites, is vitally important to prevent adverse effects to, and further loss of, remaining bat populations. Day roosts protect bats from predators and the elements during the day while they are resting and/or rearing their young. Examples of day-roosting sites include, but are not limited to, human-made 1 A habitat sink refers to an area where the productivity of a given species is insufficient to offset mortality. 11/3/21 «P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx» 2 structures, trees, caves, and cliff or rock crevices. Some types of day roosts where bats are particularly vulnerable to disturbance include: maternity colonies, where female bats congregate in the spring and summer months to give birth and raise young, and hibernacula, where bats enter a period of hibernation during the winter months. A night roost, on the other hand, refers to a structure or structural feature (natural or human-made) in which bats roost during the evening between foraging bouts. Examples of night roosts include crevices, cavities, corners, and recessed open spaces that are sheltered from the wind. Night roosts are typically situated in or near a foraging area and play an important role in the energetics and social interaction of bats. When a night roost is eliminated, the energetics needed for bats to successfully use the surrounding foraging area may be negatively affected. Day roosts may also double as night roosts, particularly if they are situated in or near a foraging area. Many bat species, particularly those that roost in relatively permanent features, have a high degree of fidelity to roost sites (Lewis 1995). Because bats have separate roosting and foraging habitat requirements, it is expected that some bats may use one area for foraging and another for roosting. While more extensive and direct impacts to bats occur through removal, destruction, or disturbance of roosts, indirect impacts (e.g., decline of the prey base due to loss or modification of foraging habitat) can also be substantial. Therefore, when assessing an area with regard to proposed alterations to habitat, a landscape-level approach is required to adequately determine potential impacts to bats. Various regulations afford protections to bats, which are classified as indigenous nongame mammal species, regardless of their status under the California or Federal Endangered Species Acts. These regulations include Title 14, Section 251.1 of the California Code of Regulations, which prohibits harassment (defined in that section as an intentional act that disrupts an animal’s normal behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering) of nongame mammals (e.g., bats), and California Fish and Game Code Section 4150, which prohibits “take”1 or possession of all nongame mammals or parts thereof. Any activities resulting in bat mortality (e.g., the destruction of an occupied bat roost that results in the death of bats), disturbance that causes the loss of a maternity colony of bats (resulting in the death of young), or various modes of nonlethal pursuit or capture may be considered “take” as defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code. In addition, impacts to bat maternity colonies, which are considered native wildlife nursery sites, could be considered potentially significant under the California Environmental Quality Act. METHODS The focused bat surveys comprised two parts. The first part consisted of a daytime bat-roosting habitat assessment conducted on November 13 and 14, 2020. The second component consisted of nighttime acoustic and emergence surveys conducted at locations that were identified as containing suitable maternity-roosting habitat during the bat-roosting habitat assessment. One round of nighttime surveys were performed early in the bat maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley) on April 27 and 29, 2021, while another round was performed later in the maternity season on June 28 and 29, 2021. Because the maternity season covers a wide variety of bat species, some of which give birth at different times within that season, performing the nighttime acoustic and emergence surveys during two different parts of the maternity season maximized the probability of detection for all bat species that may maternity roost within the study area. All aspects of the focused bat surveys were conducted and/or 1 Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” 11/3/21 «P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx» 3 directly supervised by LSA Senior Biologist and bat specialist Jill Carpenter, and detailed methods for each survey component are described below. Bat-Roosting Habitat Assessment During the afternoons of November 13 and 14, 2020, LSA Senior Biologist and bat specialist Jill Carpenter conducted a daytime bat-roosting habitat assessment at the study area. During this assessment, potential bat-roosting sites (e.g., trees, rock outcrops, and buildings) were visited on foot and examined for features such as crevices or recessed spaces that may be suitable for use as day- and/or night- roosting habitat. Where potential roosting features were accessible, Ms. Carpenter also inspected those features for the presence of bats or any bat sign (e.g., guano, urine staining, or vocalizations) indicating current or past use of an area by roosting bats. Any feature containing suitable day-roosting habitat was also assessed for its potential to be used as a maternity roost. Trees were also assessed for their potential to serve as roosting habitat for foliage-roosting bat species such as hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus), western red bats (Lasiurus blossevillii), and western yellow bats (Lasiurus xanthinus); however, this type of roosting is difficult to confirm during a daytime assessment because foliage-roosting species tend to roost singly, beneath leaves, and may roost in a different location each night. Nighttime Acoustic and Emergence Surveys Follow-up nighttime acoustic and emergence surveys were performed at potential bat-roosting sites (e.g., trees with crevices or cavities, rock outcrops, and buildings) identified during the habitat assessment to determine whether any of these sites are occupied by maternity colonies. These surveys also served to assess the level of bat foraging and roosting activity at each location, and to visually estimate the approximate number of any bats utilizing each feature. Two rounds of surveys were performed: the first round was conducted on April 27 and 29, 2021, to collect data during the early part of the bat maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley), and the second round was conducted on June 28 and 29, 2021, to collect data later in the maternity season. Each nighttime acoustic and emergence survey was initiated approximately 20 minutes before sunset and continued until at least one full hour after sunset to determine whether a given roost feature was used by bats for roosting. All nighttime surveys were performed under warm weather conditions appropriate for the season, winds were below 5 miles per hour (mph), and there was no risen moon. Biologists from LSA assisted the bat specialist in performing the exit counts, operating acoustic equipment, and documenting observations to correlate with the acoustic recordings collected during the surveys. The bat specialist directly supervised all surveys and maintained constant communication and oversight with all biologists participating in the given nighttime surveys. During the emergence period, each observer used night vision goggles (military grade PVS-7, Generation 3) with auxiliary infrared lights and was positioned at a vantage point that optimized visibility of any bats that could exit or enter the roost feature (e.g., tree, snag, or rock outcrop) being observed. The number of bats exiting or entering a given roost feature during the emergence period was recorded using handheld tally counters, and species were identified using a combination of visual and acoustic techniques. Anabat Express and Swift (Titley Scientific) ultrasound detectors were used to collect acoustic data to aid in identifying any bat species roosting within the trees or that occur in the vicinity, and secure digital (SD) memory cards were used to record the call files. To gather more complete information about bat activity throughout the evenings, acoustic detectors were left on site overnight on April 27, April 28, and June 28. Some of these detectors were then moved to new locations on the afternoons of April 29 and June 29 before being retrieved at the conclusion of the April 29 and June 29 surveys. It is important to note that 11/3/21 «P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx» 4 not all bats recorded next to potential roost sites are those exiting or entering the roost feature in question. Some are foraging bats en route to or from other areas. It is essential, therefore, to have observers on site in order to correlate calls with visual observations. It is also important to note that the species composition and activity levels recorded during a single nighttime visit to any site may not necessarily reflect long-term patterns of use (e.g., seasonal and nightly use of an area). Acoustic data were subsequently analyzed using AnalookW (for echolocation call sequences recorded on the Expresses) or SonoBat DataViewer 4.5 acoustic analysis software (for full-spectrum call sequences recorded on the Swifts). Species identifications of acoustic data, where possible, were made by comparing call recordings with a library of “voucher” calls from known hand-released bats. Some limitations are inherent in acoustic monitoring and in the analysis of acoustic data; these include (but are not limited to) human bias and past experience in data interpretation, as well as the fact that some species are not equally detectable or may not be recorded at all. Some bats (e.g., Mexican free-tailed bats [Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana]) emit loud low-frequency echolocation calls that can be recorded from great distances and will be overrepresented in the data, while “whispering” bats (e.g., Townsend’s big-eared bats [Corynorhinus townsendii]) emit faint calls that may not be recorded at all. Some bat species such as pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus) frequently do not echolocate and instead listen for prey-produced sounds; consequently, these species are often not detected even when present in an area. In addition, not all echolocation call sequences are identifiable because different bat species may use similar types of echolocation calls, or the same species may use different types of echolocation calls based on the perceptual task and the immediate environment or habitat. Multi-species acoustic groups are often used to categorize echolocation calls that cannot be definitively identified to species. The acoustic groups relevant to the biological study area include 50 kilohertz (kHz) Myotis (steep echolocation calls terminating near 50 kHz that could belong to California myotis [Myotis californicus] or Yuma myotis [Myotis yumanensis]), Q25 (variable echolocation calls terminating between 25 and 35 kHz that can be produced by multiple species including Mexican free-tailed bat, big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), and pallid bat), and the LACI/NYFE group (relatively flat echolocation calls at 16–18 kHz that could be produced by hoary bats [LACI] or pocketed free-tailed bats [NYFE]). Because the flight behavior and foraging patterns can differ between species, visual observation during the survey often aids in making more definitive identifications. RESULTS Suitable day-roosting habitat for a variety of bat species was observed in trees, rock outcrops associated with Coral Mountain, and an abandoned adobe within the study area. Vegetation within the study area includes desert saltbush scrub, tamarisk scrub, and mesquite hummock, with most of the site characterized as open desert scrub. Two large stands of blue palo verde (Parkinsonia florida) are present in the western portion of the study area. Dominant plant species include fourwind saltbush (Atriplex canescens), bush seepweed (Suaeda nigra), athel (Tamarix aphylla), and common Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus). Although some of the land is disturbed in the southern and northeast portions of the study area, these different vegetation types and their associated insect fauna provide foraging habitat for a variety of bat species. In addition to providing potential roosting habitat for several bat species, the palo verde stands in the western portion of the study area may also serve as foraging habitat for species such as the California leaf-nosed bat and pallid bat. A total of eight bat species were confirmed as present during the nighttime surveys in April 2021, and a ninth bat species was detected during the June 2021 surveys. An additional five bat species were not detected during either round of surveys but have the potential to occur in the study area. These species 11/3/21 «P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx» 5 are listed in Table A, below, with descriptions of their corresponding roosting habitat characteristics as well as the probability of that species roosting within the study area. All identified potential roosting locations are mapped on Figure 1, and representative photos are shown on Figure 2 (figures are provided as an attachment to this report). More detailed descriptions of each of the potential roost sites (i.e., trees, rock outcrops, and adobe building) observed within the study area are provided below. Table A: Bat Species That Occur or May Occur in Study area Species Name (Scientific/Common) Status1 Description of Roosting Habitat Probability of Occurrence within Study Area FAMILY: PHYLLOSTOMIDAE Macrotus californicus California leaf-nosed bat US: FSS CA: SSC WBWG: H Day roosts primarily in caves and mines, but occasionally roosts in anthropogenic structures such as bridges. Foraging habitat is predominantly in desert washes containing palo verde, ironwood, or smoke trees. Diet consists primarily of large arthropods (e.g., katydids and sphinx moths) that they glean from vegetation. This species has also been documented consuming lizards. Examples of prey include antlions, beetles, centipedes, cicadas, crickets, grasshoppers, Jerusalem crickets, katydids, moths, and scorpions (Brown and Berry 1994). High. Suitable caves for day roosting present in the rock outcrops on the western edge of the study area. Known to occur in natural caves along the shoreline of Lake Cahuilla in the vicinity (Brown and Berry 1994). Palo verde stands in western portion of study area provide preferred foraging habitat, and it is likely that this species is present within the study area. FAMILY: VESPERTILIONIDAE Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat US: FSS CA: SSC WBWG: H Roosts in crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, hollows or cavities of large trees, and anthropogenic structures such as bridges and buildings; may also roost near the ground in rock piles. Foraging habitat includes grassland, open scrub, open forest, and gravel roads. Diet composition varies among populations, but considered opportunistic generalists. Glean a variety of arthropod prey from surfaces, but also capture insects on the wing. Examples of prey include antlions, beetles, centipedes, cicadas, crickets, grasshoppers, Jerusalem crickets, katydids, moths, and scorpions (Rambaldini 2005). Detected. Suitable trees and rock outcrops for day roosting present in study area. Suitable foraging habitat in open desert scrub. Visually observed emerging from roosts in rock outcrops, as well as foraging in palo verde stands at the western portion of the study area. Eptesicus fuscus Big brown bat US: – CA: – WBWG: L Roosts in trees, caves, and crevices in cliff faces and in anthropogenic structures such as bridges, buildings, and mines. Typically forages for heavy- bodied insects along tree canopies, over meadows, or along water courses within a few kilometers of roost sites. Primarily beetle (coleopteran) specialists, but diet also includes hemipterans, dipterans, lepidopterans, trichopterans and hymenopterans (Perkins 2005). Detected. Suitable trees and rock outcrops for day roosting present in study area. Crevices in adobe building are also suitable for roosting. Forages in study area. Lasiurus blossevillii Western red bat US: FSS CA: SSC WBWG: H Typically solitary. Roosts in the foliage of broad- leafed trees or shrubs within streams or fields, in orchards, and occasionally urban areas; commonly roosts in mature cottonwoods and sycamores. Also documented roosting in mature Low. Typically more associated with riparian habitats, but has been documented in desert scrub habitats. May occur in study 11/3/21 «P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx» 6 Table A: Bat Species That Occur or May Occur in Study area Species Name (Scientific/Common) Status1 Description of Roosting Habitat Probability of Occurrence within Study Area eucalyptus trees and palm trees. Strongly associated with riparian corridors, but has also been observed foraging around street lights and flood lights in urban settings. Examples of prey include homopterans, coleopterans, hymenopterans, dipterans, and lepidopterans. (Bolster 2005a). area. Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat US: – CA: – WBWG: M Solitary. Roosts in the foliage of coniferous, deciduous, and evergreen trees and shrubs, often at the edge of a clearing. Typically roosts near the ends of branches approximately 3–12 meters above the ground. Generally considered to prefer moths, but also consumes beetles, flies, grasshoppers, termites, dragonflies, and wasps. Migratory wintering sites have not been well documented, and specific migration routes are not known (Bolster 2005b). Low. Suitable large trees present for day roosting, including athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla). Unlikely to be present during the summer months. May forage in study area. Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat US: – CA: SSC WBWG: H Roosts hanging from the underside of leaves in trees. Commonly roosts in the dead fronds of native and nonnative palm trees, though has also been documented roosting in cottonwood trees. Foraging areas include natural and non-natural water features, canyons, riparian areas, orchards, and residential areas. Diet includes Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, Homoptera, Lepidoptera, and Orthoptera (Williams 2005). Detected. Suitable palm tree for day roosting present at northern edge of the study area. Forages in study area. Myotis californicus California myotis US: – CA: – WBWG: L Roosts in crevices within caves, mines, and rocky hillsides, as well as under tree bark and in buildings. Forages in a variety of habitats. Typically consumes moths and flies, but is known to eat other insects (Bogan et al. 2005a). Detected. Suitable trees and rocky outcrops present for day roosting. Crevices in adobe building are also suitable for roosting. Forages in study area. Myotis ciliolabrum Western small-footed myotis US: – CA: SA WBWG: M Individuals are known to roost singly or in small groups in cliff and rock crevices, caves, mines, culverts, and buildings. Forages on small insects over desert, scrub, chaparral, and riparian habitats (Bogan et al. 2005b). Detected. Suitable rock outcrops present for day roosting. Forages in study area. Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis US: – CA: SA WBWG: LM Roosts in crevices within bridges, buildings, culverts, cliff crevices, caves, mines, and trees, typically near a perennial water source. Also documented roosting in swallows nests. Forages primarily on aquatic emergent insects; example prey items include caddis flies, flies, midges, small moths, and small beetles (Bogan et al. 2005c). High. Suitable trees for day roosting present. Crevices in adobe building are also suitable for roosting. May forage over open water in golf courses and water impoundments immediately adjacent to the study area. 11/3/21 «P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx» 7 Table A: Bat Species That Occur or May Occur in Study area Species Name (Scientific/Common) Status1 Description of Roosting Habitat Probability of Occurrence within Study Area Parastrellus hesperus Western canyon bat US: – CA: – WBWG: L Roosts in small crevices in rocky canyons, caves, mines, bridges, culverts, and outcrops; may roost under rocks or in small burrows. Feeds on small swarming insects such as flying ants, mosquitoes, fruit flies, leafhoppers, and ants (Brown 2005a). Detected. Suitable rock outcrops present for day roosting. Observed foraging in study area. FAMILY: MOLOSSIDAE Eumops perotis Western mastiff bat US: – CA: SSC WBWG: H Primarily a cliff-dwelling species, roosting under exfoliating rock slabs and in crevices in boulders and buildings. May forage considerable distances from roost sites, and foraging habitat includes dry desert washes, flood plains, chaparral, oak woodland, open ponderosa pine forest, grassland, and agricultural areas. Consumes primarily large moths, but also eats beetles, crickets, and katydids (Siders 2005). Detected. Suitable rock outcrops for day roosting present. Heard foraging over study area. Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed free-tailed bat US: – CA: SSC WBWG: M Primarily in crevices in cliffs, high rocky outcrops, and slopes. Consumes mainly large moths, but also eats grasshoppers, beetles, crickets, leafhoppers, and flying ants (Navo 2005a). Detected. Suitable rock outcrops for day roosting present. Heard foraging over study area. Nyctinomops macrotis Big free-tailed bat US: – CA: SSC WBWG: MH Roosts mainly in crevices in cliffs, although there is some documentation of roosting in buildings, caves, and tree cavities. Found in desert shrub, woodlands, and evergreen forests. Consumes mainly large moths, but also eats grasshoppers, beetles, crickets, leafhoppers, and flying ants (Navo 2005b). Moderate. Suitable rock outcrops for day roosting present. May forage in study area. Tadarida brasiliensis Mexican free-tailed bat US: – CA: – WBWG: L Roosts in caves, rock crevices on cliff faces, and anthropogenic structures such as mines, culverts, tunnels, and bridges. Also documented roosting in swallows nests. Highly colonial. Forages over a variety of habitats; consuming mostly moths, but also flying ants, weevils, stink-bugs and ground beetles (BCI 2005). Detected. Suitable rock outcrops for day roosting present. Crevices in adobe building are also suitable for roosting. Forages in study area. 1 All bat species are protected under the California Fish and Game Code; status categories include California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern (SSC) and Special Animal (SA), as well as Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) conservation priority designations of High (H), Medium (M), and Low (L) FSS = Forest Service Sensitive species. Taxa identified by the U.S. Forest Service in Region 5 (Pacific Southwest Region) that are not listed or proposed for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act but receive special management consideration within the National Forest. Tree/Snag Roosts Suitable cavities and crevices for roosting bats, including those found in broken limbs and beneath exfoliating bark, were observed in snags and in several of the mature palo verde trees present in the western portion of the study area. Bat species that occur or may occur in the study area and are known to commonly utilize crevices and cavities in trees or snags as day roosts (including maternity roosts) include pallid bat, big brown bat, California myotis, and Yuma myotis. 11/3/21 «P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx» 8 Bats may also day roost in the dead frond “skirt” of the palm tree (Washingtonia sp.) near the northern boundary of the study area. The western yellow bat, a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern (SSC), is a foliage-roosting species that is considered an obligate palm-roosting bat and is found throughout the Coachella Valley (Mumford and Zimmerman 1963; Ortiz and Barrows 2014). In addition to western yellow bat, at least seven other bat species that may occur in the study area have also been documented using palm trees as roosts, including western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis), Mexican free-tailed bat, big brown bat, western red bat, hoary bat, pallid bat, and canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus). It is presumed based on their roosting ecology that any Myotis species (Myotis spp.) is likely to use palm trees for roosting. Big brown bats and some myotis species have also been documented using palm trees as maternity roosts, so it is possible that any of the palm trees could be used for maternity roosting by species other than western yellow bat. Foliage-roosting bats such as hoary bats and western red bat may roost in the foliage of the palo verde and athel trees within the study area; however, it is unlikely that either of these species would maternity roost within the study area. The presence of foliage-roosting bats is difficult to confirm during surveys due to the nature of this roosting behavior (these species tend to roost singly, beneath leaves, and may roost in a different location each night). Extensive foraging activity by various bat species, including pallid bat, was observed in the vicinity of the palo verde tree stands during the April and June 2021 emergence surveys. Although no bats were observed roosting in the palm tree or in any of the palo verde trees during any of the emergence surveys, bats may occupy these suitable roost features at any time. Rock Crevice and Cave Roosts The western portion of the study area includes rock outcrops associated with Coral Mountain. Crevices and caves suitable for roosting were observed along this rocky hillside; these could be used by a variety of bat species for roosting, including pallid bat, big brown bat, California myotis, canyon bat, pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), western mastiff bat, and Mexican free-tailed bat. During the nighttime acoustic and emergence surveys in April and June 2021, over a hundred bats were observed emerging from one section of the rock outcrops at Coral Mountain. The emerging bats that were identified using a combination of visual and acoustic techniques included canyon bats, California myotis, and pallid bats, confirming that these species roost within the study area. Building Roosts An abandoned adobe building associated with a former citrus ranch is present near the middle of the site. This building is in a state of disrepair, and has sustained fire damage and is missing a substantial portion of its roof. Nonetheless, this structure contains crevices suitable for use by day- and night- roosting bats at various interfaces between the adobe bricks and wooden window frames and doors, as well as at the edges of the roof. Bat species with potential to roost in these crevices include pallid bat, big brown bat, California myotis, western small-footed myotis, and Mexican free-tailed bat. Although no bats were observed roosting in the abandoned adobe during the April or June 2021 emergence surveys, bats change their roost sites seasonally and it is possible that this structure could be used for roosting at other times of the year. 11/3/21 «P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx» 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Suitable roosting habitat that could be used by day-roosting bats, including bat maternity colonies, was observed in trees, rock outcrops, and an abandoned adobe building within the study area. Maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley) surveys were conducted gather information on numbers and species of any bats present in suitable roost features identified during the habitat assessment. Two rounds of surveys were performed to maximize the probability of detection of maternity roosts: the first round during the early part of the bat maternity season in April 2021, and a second round in June 2021 during the peak period of the maternity season when all local bat species can be expected to occupy their maternity roosts. During those surveys, large numbers of bats consistent with the presence of maternity colonies were observed emerging from the crevices and small caves along the rock outcrops within a portion of Coral Mountain within the study area. The presence of roosting bats was not confirmed in any other type of roost feature during the emergence surveys. Although no construction will occur at the rock outcrops at Coral Mountain, where occupied bat roosts were identified during the April and June 2021 surveys, bats roosting in that area could be subject to potential adverse effects from an increase in artificial lighting from the proposed project. Multiple studies indicate that ongoing night lighting, in particular, can be very disruptive to foraging and roosting behaviors. Stone et al. (2009) found that light pollution can negatively impact bats’ selection of flight routes by limiting the options for flyways, and can even eliminate bats’ abilities to use certain roosts and/or foraging areas. Rydell et al. (2017) and Voigt et al. (2018) note that maintaining darkness at maternity roosts is particularly important because at these types of roosts, aggregations of bats are present consistently over a long period of time, individual bats emerge from predictable locations, and juvenile bats are learning how to fly. Illumination of a maternity roost renders the colony more vulnerable to opportunistic predators such as raptors and owls, and predator-avoidance behaviors such as delayed emergence times reduce their foraging opportunities, thereby lowering juvenile survivorship. The following measure is recommended to reduce potential adverse effects to bats from artificial lighting: • To avoid permanent impacts to roosting bats from the installation of new light fixtures associated with the proposed development, all lighting fixtures should have light shields or similar devices (e.g., dark sky compliant lighting) installed to reduce illuminance and minimize light trespass on to Coral Mountain and any open space areas to levels that are below 0.1 lux. Although no bats were observed emerging from the palm tree near the northern edge of the study area, western yellow bat was acoustically detected within the study area during the April 2021 nighttime surveys, and it is possible that this species may roost within the study area. The palm tree may also be used by a variety of other bat species for roosting (including maternity roosting). Bats were also not observed emerging from any of the palo verde trees with crevices or cavities during the April and June 2021 emergence surveys; however, it is possible that these trees could be used for roosting at other times of the year. If the palm tree or any of the palo verde trees identified as having crevice or cavity habitat are removed or trimmed for the project, the following measures are recommended to avoid “take” of adult and juvenile bats: • Removal of trees (including palm trees) shall occur during the fall months (September or October) to the greatest extent feasible, and will avoid the bat maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley), which coincides with the bird nesting season, to avoid the potential for “take” of nonvolant (flightless) young. Trees and snags that have been identified as confirmed or potential 11/3/21 «P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx» 10 roost sites require a two-step removal process and the involvement of a bat biologist to ensure that no roosting bats are killed during this activity. This two-step removal shall occur over two consecutive days as follows: on Day 1, branches and limbs not containing cavities, as identified by a qualified bat biologist, will be removed. On Day 2, the remainder of the tree may be removed without supervision by a bat biologist. The disturbance caused by limb or frond removal, followed by an interval of one evening, will allow bats to safely abandon the roost. Although no bats were observed roosting in the abandoned adobe during the April or June 2021 emergence surveys, bats change their roost sites seasonally and it is possible that this structure could be used for roosting at other times of the year. If any roosting bats are present during demolition of the abandoned adobe building, those bats would be subject to direct impacts including potential mortality. The following measure is recommended to avoid “take” of bats during removal of the adobe: • A qualified bat biologist shall confirm the absence of roosting bats prior to removal of the adobe. If bats are found or if the absence of bats cannot be confirmed, the bat biologist will install or directly supervise installation of humane eviction devices and exclusionary material to prevent bats from roosting in the building. Implementation of the humane eviction/exclusions is typically performed in the fall (September or October) preceding construction activity at each structure to avoid impacts to hibernating bats during the winter months or during the maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley), when nonvolant (flightless) young are present. Any humane eviction/exclusion devices must be installed at least 10 days prior to the demolition of a structure housing bats to allow sufficient time for the bats to vacate the roost(s). In addition to roosting habitat, foraging habitat supporting multiple special-status bat species was identified within the study area. To minimize potential adverse effects to bats from loss of foraging habitat, the following measure is recommended: • Existing native vegetation, particularly palo verde trees, will be retained where feasible. Landscaping shall include native desert species. The above actions will reduce the potential for project-related impacts to bats to the greatest extent feasible. If you have questions regarding this report or would like to discuss the project further, please contact me at (949) 337-6103. Sincerely, LSA Associates, Inc. Jill Carpenter Senior Biologist Bat Specialist Attachments: A: References B: Figures: Figure 1: Locations of Suitable Roosting Habitat Figure 2: Representative Site Photos R ESULTS OF F OCUSED B AT S URVEYS N OVEMBER 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN D EVELOPMENT P ROJECT L A Q UINTA, R IVERSIDE C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx (11/03/21) ATTACHMENT A REFERENCES R ESULTS OF F OCUSED B AT S URVEYS N OVEMBER 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN D EVELOPMENT P ROJECT L A Q UINTA, R IVERSIDE C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx (11/03/21) A-1 REFERENCES Bat Conservation International (BCI). 2005. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – updated species account, Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. Bogan, M.A., E.W. Valdez, and K.W. Navo. 2005a. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – updated species account, California myotis (Myotis californicus). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. _____. 2005b. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – updated species account, Western small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. _____. 2005c. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – updated species account, Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. Bolster, B.C. 2005a. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – updated species account, western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. _____. 2005b. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – updated species account, hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. Boldogh, S.D., D. Dobrosi, and P. Samu. 2007. The Effects of the Illumination of Buildings on House- Dwelling Bats and Its Conservation Consequences. Acta Chiropterologica 9:527–534. doi:10.3161/1733-5329 (2007)9[527:TEOTIO]2.0.C;2. Brown, P.E., and R.D. Berry. 1994. The Status and Range of the California Leaf-nosed Bat, Macrotus californicus, in California. Report prepared for the Bird and Mammal Conservation Program, California Department of Fish and Game. Brown, P.E. 2005a. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – updated species account, western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. _____. 2005b. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – species account, California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. Kunz, T.H., and L.F. Lumsden. 2003. Ecology of Cavity and Foliage Roosting Bats, pp. 3-89, in Bat Ecology (T.H. Kunz and M.B. Fenton eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Lewis, S.E. 1995. Roost Fidelity of Bats: A Review. Journal of Mammalogy 76:481–496. R ESULTS OF F OCUSED B AT S URVEYS N OVEMBER 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN D EVELOPMENT P ROJECT L A Q UINTA, R IVERSIDE C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx (11/03/21) A-2 Miner, K.L., and D.C. Stokes. 2005. Bats in the South Coast Ecoregion: Status, Conservation Issues, and Research Needs. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-195. Mumford, R.E. and D.A. Zimmerman. 1963. The southern yellow bat in New Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy 44:417–418. Navo, K.W. 2005a. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species –species account, pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. _____. 2005b. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species –species account, big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. Ortiz, D.D., and C.W. Barrows. 2014. Occupancy patterns of western yellow bats (Lasiurus xanthinus) in palm oases in the lower Colorado Desert. The Southwestern Naturalist, 59(3), 381-388. Perkins, M. 2005. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – updated species account, big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. Piaggio, A. 2005. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – updated species account, Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. Original account by R. Sherwin, 1998. Pierson, E.D., and W.E. Rainey. 1998. Distribution, habitat associations, status, and survey methodologies for three Molossid bat species (Eumops perotis, Nyctinomops femorosaccus, Nyctinomops macrotis) and the Vespertilionid (Euderma maculatum). California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division Contract #FG2328WM, Sacramento, CA. 61 p. Pierson, E.D., W.E. Rainey and C. Corben. 2006. Distribution and status of Western red bats (Lasiurus blossevillii) in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, Species Conservation and Recovery Program Report 2006-04, Sacramento, CA. 45 pp. Rambaldini, D.A. 2005. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – updated species accounts, pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. Original account by R. Sherwin, 1998. Rydell, J., J. Eklöf, and S. Sánchez-Navarro. 2017. Age of Enlightenment: Long-Term Effects of Outdoor Aesthetic Lights on Bats in Churches. Royal Society Open Science 4(8):161077. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.16107 7. Stone, E.L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street Lighting Disturbs Commuting Bats. Current Biology 19: 1123-1127. R ESULTS OF F OCUSED B AT S URVEYS N OVEMBER 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN D EVELOPMENT P ROJECT L A Q UINTA, R IVERSIDE C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx (11/03/21) A-3 Siders, M.S. 2005. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – updated species account, western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. Original account by E.D. Pierson, 1998. Voigt, C.C., et al. 2018. Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Lighting Projects. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 8. Bonn, Germany: UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat. 62 pp. Williams, J.A. 2005. Proceedings of the Western Bat Working Group workshop on ecology, conservation and management of western bat species – updated species account, western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). March 31–April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. Original account by B.C. Bolster, 1998. R ESULTS OF F OCUSED B AT S URVEYS N OVEMBER 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN D EVELOPMENT P ROJECT L A Q UINTA, R IVERSIDE C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx (11/03/21) ATTACHMENT B FIGURES !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(MADISONSTARCHINE LN60TH AV 58TH AV CL CONCHITA LEGEND Study Area Rock Crevice/Cave Roost Suitable Roosting Habitat Locations !(Potential Tree Roost (Eucalyptus S nag) !(Potential Tree Roost (Palm Tree) !(Potential Tree Roost (Palo Verde) !(Potential Tree Roost (S nag) SOURCE: Nearmap (9/23/2020) I:\CWV1901\GIS\MXD\Bio\SuitableBatRoostingHab.mxd (5/3/2021) FIGURE 1 The Wave at Coral MountainFocused Bat Surveys Locatio ns of Su itable Roosting Habitat 0 375 750 FEET ProjectLocation RiversideCounty ÃÃ74 ÃÃ195 ÃÃ111 ÃÃ111 ÃÃ86 §¨¦10 Project Vicinity R ESULTS OF F OCUSED B AT S URVEYS M AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN D EVELOPMENT P ROJECT L A Q UINTA, R IVERSIDE C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA \\vcorp12\projects\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_AprilBatSurveys.docx (05/06/21) B-2 Figure 2: Representative Site Photos Representative view of palo verde trees and snags that provide suitable crevice and/or cavity roosting habitat for bats. Representative view of foraging habitat between palo verde stands in the western portion of the study area. Representative view of the crevices and caves along the portion of Coral Mountain that is situated within the study area. Representative view of crevice habitat suitable for day-roosting bats and maternity colonies at the abandoned adobe. R ESULTS OF F OCUSED B AT S URVEYS N OVEMBER 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN D EVELOPMENT P ROJECT L A Q UINTA, R IVERSIDE C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx (11/03/21) B-2 Figure 2: Representative Site Photos Representative view of palo verde trees and snags that provide suitable crevice and/or cavity roosting habitat for bats. Representative view of foraging habitat between palo verde stands in the western portion of the study area. Representative view of the crevices and caves along the portion of Coral Mountain that is situated within the study area. Representative view of crevice habitat suitable for day-roosting bats and maternity colonies at the abandoned adobe. CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Update Biological Resources Assessment and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix D.4 January 2022 May November 2021 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS CORAL MOUNTAIN SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF LA QUINTA RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA May November 2021 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT RESORT PROJECT CITY OF LA QUINTA RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Mr. Garret Simon CM Wave Development, LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 901 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite B200 Palm Springs, California 92262 (760) 416‐2075 LSA Project No. CWV1901 B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LSA was retained by CM Wave Development, LLC to prepare a Biological Resources Assessment and to conduct a Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Consistency Analysis. This report has been prepared for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the CVMSHCP, and the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. A few revisions and clarifications have been made to this document based upon comment letters on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), including a comment letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). These revisions include modifications to some of the mitigation measures as requested by CDFW. The study area lies within the planning boundaries of the CVMSHCP. The CVMSHCP provides take coverage for covered species, which include both listed and non‐listed species that are adequately conserved by the CVMSHCP. To ensure adequate conservation of covered species, CVMSHCP Conservation Areas provide habitat and other ecological elements. The study area does not lie within a CVMSHCP Conservation Area. The study area contains suitable habitat for the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) and other nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. A burrowing owl pre‐construction survey will be required to ensure any direct impacts to this species will be avoided. In addition, it is recommended that vegetation removal be conducted between September 1 and January 15 (outside the general bird nesting season) to avoid impacts to nesting birds. If vegetation cannot be removed outside the bird nesting season, a pre‐construction nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist areis required prior to vegetation removal. Although the study area does not contain suitable habitat for peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelson), current and historic use of Coral Mountain has been documented by CDFW and was noted in the comment letter to the DEIR. To avoid take of peninsular bighorn sheep, specific measures will be implemented, including, but not limited to, the installation of barrier fencing. The study area contains suitable roosting and foraging habitat for multiple bat species. Suitable roosting sites are present in native and non‐native ornamental palms, rock outcrops associated with Coral Mountain, and an abandoned adobe structure. Although no occupied maternity roosts were identified within the project footprint, rRoosting bats were confirmed in the Coral Mountain rock outcrops within the study area during early‐maternity season surveys performed in April and June 2021. Additional maternity‐season surveys will be performed in June 2021 to maximize the probability of detection of maternity roosts for all bat species that may occur in the proposed project area and to gather more precise data on numbers and species of bats in roosts identified during the April 2021 survey. It is possible that suitable maternity roost sites within the project area could be occupied by maternity colonies in the future. Therefore, a CDFW‐approved bat If maternity roosts are identified within the project area, the biologist will coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to implement avoidance measures during the bat maternity season in accordance with CDFW’s established standards. With implementation of this and other mitigation measures, impacts to roosting bats will be less than significant. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) ii At least one year prior to construction, a qualified bat biologist will conduct a habitat assessment and acoustic surveys for roosting bats. If maternity roosts or hibernacula are found, the biologist will coordinate with CDFW to implement avoidance measures where possible. If avoidance of the roost(s) is not feasible, the biologist will prepare a site‐specific bat avoidance and mitigation plan and coordinate with CDFW. This avoidance and mitigation plan would include mitigation strategies to minimize and/or mitigate adverse effects to bats, post‐implementation monitoring, and performance standards. No potential jurisdictional waters regulated pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and no lake, rivers, or streambeds regulated pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife are present within the study area. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) iii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. iii Figures ............................................................................................................................................. iii Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................. 1 Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 1 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ........................................................ 4 Special‐Status Species ...................................................................................................................... 4 Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................................. 8 Jurisdictional Waters ........................................................................................................................ 8 IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 8 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................................. 9 Non‐Listed Special‐Interest Species ................................................................................................. 9 Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 10 Jurisdictional Waters ...................................................................................................................... 10 Habitat Fragmentation and Wildlife Movement ........................................................................... 10 Local Policies and Ordinances ........................................................................................................ 11 MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................................................................... 11 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................... 13 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................................... 14 Figures Figure 1: Regional and Project Location Map ......................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Vegetation and Photograph Key Location Map ...................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Site Photographs ..................................................................................................................... 6 Appendices A: PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED B: SPECIAL‐INTEREST SPECIES SUMMARY B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) 1 INTRODUCTION LSA was retained by CM Wave Development, LLC to prepare a Biological Resources Assessment and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Consistency Analysis. This report evaluates the approximately 385‐acre proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Development Project (project) located in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Specifically, the project lies south of 58th Avenue and directly west of Madison Street. The project study area is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) La Quinta, Indio, Martinez Mountain, and Valerie, California 7.5‐minute topographic quadrangles in Sections 27 and 28, Township 6 South, Range 7 East (Figure 1). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes mixed‐use residential, resort, and recreational development. METHODS Literature Review A literature review was conducted to assist in determining the existence or potential occurrence of special‐interest plant and animal species within the study area and in the project vicinity. A records search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) Rarefind 5 (2019), and California Native Plant Society’s Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (California Native Plant Society [CNPS] v7‐18) for the La Quinta, Indio, Martinez Mountain, and Valerie, California USGS 7.5‐minute quadrangles was conducted on August 16, 2019. Additionally a subsequent literature search was conducted on April 27, 2021. A review of the Final Recirculated CVMSHCP (CVAG 2007) was also conducted in order to determine CVMSHCP consistency and conservation measures that apply to the proposed project, and to reference vegetation types within the study area. Geographic Information System software was used to map the project location, habitat types, land uses, etc. Field Survey LSA Biologist Jodi Ross‐Borrego conducted a general field survey within the study area on September 11, 2019, from 8:00 am to 1:35 pm. Weather conditions consisted of clear skies, temperatures ranging from 73 to 91 degrees Fahrenheit, and winds ranging from 3 to 5 miles per hour. Additionally, a follow up general biological field survey was conducted on April 28, 2021 from 6:00 am to 12:40 p.m. Weather conditions consisted of clear skies, temperatures ranging from 58 to 89 degrees Fahrenheit, and winds ranging from 3 to 5 miles per hour. The entire study area was surveyed on foot. Notes were taken on general site conditions, vegetation, and suitability of habitat for various special‐interest elements. A bat habitat assessment was performed in November 2020 by LSA bat specialist Jill Carpenter, and focused nighttime acoustic and emergence surveys were conducted by LSA biologists in April and June 2021. The detailed results of the focused bat surveys are provided in a separate report. All plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected during all field surveys were noted and are listed in Appendix A. Appendix B summarizes the special‐ interest plant and animal species potentially present within the study area. SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad., La Quinta, CA (1980); Indio, CA (1972); Martinez Mtn, CA (1988); Valerie, CA (1972) I:\CWV1901\GIS\MXD\Project_Location.mxd (10/9/2019) FIGURE 1 The Wave at Coral MountainRegional and Project Location Map 0 1000 2000 FEET LEGEND Study Area RiversideCounty ÃÃ74 ÃÃ195 ÃÃ111 ÃÃ111 ÃÃ86 ProjectLocation §¨¦10 Project Vicinity B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) 3 RESULTS Existing Site Conditions The study area is south of 58th Avenue and west of Madison Street. Other surrounding land uses include residential development to the north and east, vacant land to the west, and settling ponds to the south. The project falls within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP, as discussed in further detail below. Topography and Soils The study area is situated on relatively flat land within elevations ranging from approximately 72 feet below mean sea level to 65 feet above mean sea level. A mosaic of soils occurs within the study area and is mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (Knecht 1980) as the following types:  CdC: Carsitas gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes;  CpA: Coachella fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes;  CsA: Coachella fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes;  GaB: Gilman loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes;  GbA: Gilman find sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes;  Ip: Indio fine sandy loam;  Ir: Indio fine sandy loam, wet;  Is: Indio very fine sandy loam;  It: Indio very fine sandy loam, wet;  MaB: Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes; and  RO: Rock outcrop. Vegetation Vegetation within the study area is best described as Desert Saltbush scrub, Tamarisk scrub, and Mesquite Hummock (CVMSHCP 2007). Land is disturbed in southern and northeast portions of the study area and a stand of blue palo verde (Parkinsonia florida) is present in the eastern portion of the study area. Dominant species include fourwind saltbush (Atriplex canescens), bush seepweed (Suaeda nigra), athel (Tamarix aphylla), and common Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus). The majority of the study area was previously agricultural land. As a result, the Desert Saltbush scrub is fairly disturbed throughout the study area. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) 4 Wildlife Common wildlife species observed within the study area during the field survey include common raven (Corvus corax), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and greater roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus). Figure 2 shows vegetation and photograph key locations. Figure 3 shows site photographs. A complete list of plant and wildlife species observed is provided in Appendix A. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The CVMSHCP is a comprehensive, multi‐jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in the Coachella Valley region of Riverside County. The overall goal of the CVMSHCP is to maintain and enhance biological diversity and ecosystem processes within the region, while allowing for future economic growth. The CVMSHCP covers 27 sensitive plant and wildlife species (Covered Species) as well as 27 natural communities. Covered Species include both listed and non‐listed species that are adequately conserved by the CVMSHCP. The overall provisions for the plan are subdivided according to specific resource conservation goals that have been organized according to geographic areas defined as Conservation Areas. The proposed project is within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP; however, it is not within any conservation areas identified in the CVMSHCP. Special‐Status Species This section discusses special‐status species observed or potentially occurring within the limits of the study area. Legal protection for special‐interest species varies widely, from the comprehensive protection extended to listed threatened/endangered species, to no legal interest at present. The CDFW, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), local agencies, and special‐interest groups, such as the CNPS, publish watch lists of declining species. Species on watch lists can be included as part of the special‐interest species assessment. Species that are candidates for State and/or Federal listing and species on watch lists are included in the special‐interest species list. Inclusion of species described in the special‐interest species analysis is based on the following criteria:  Direct observation of the species or its sign in the study area or immediate vicinity during previous biological studies;  Sighting by other qualified observers;  Record reported by the NDDB, published by the CDFW;  Presence or location information for specific species provided by private groups (e.g., CNPS); and/or  Study area lies within known distribution of a given species and contains appropriate habitat. LEGEND Study Area !Photo Locations Vegetation Desert Saltbush Scrub Disturbed Mesquite Hummock Paloverde Stand Tamarisk ScrubSOURCE: Bing Aerial (09/2017) I:\CWV1901\GIS\MXD\Vegetation_and_Photo_Key.mxd (10/9/2019) FIGURE 2 The Wave at Coral MountainVegetation, Land Use, andPhotograph Key Location Map 0 375 750 FEET I:\CWV1901\G\Site_Photos.cdr (10/9/2019) FIGURE 3 Site Photographs The Wave at Coral Mountain Photo1.Viewofdesertsaltbushscrubasseenfacingsouth.Photo 2.View of the proposed project site as seen facing southeast. Photo3.Viewofanaccessroadasseenfacingnorth.Photo 4.View of desert saltbush scrub as seen facing northwest. Sheet 1 of 2 B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) 7 The special‐interest species analysis revealed 5049 special‐interest species with the potential to occur within the limits of the study area. Appendix B lists these species with a data summary and determination of the likelihood of each species occurring within the study area. Threatened/Endangered Species The following seven federally/State listed species were identified as potentially present (Appendix B) in the project vicinity:  Coachella Valley milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae [CVMV]): Federally listed as Endangered and CVMSHCP covered species;  Triple‐ribbed milkvetch (Astragalus tricarinatus): Federally listed as Endangered and CVMSHCP covered species;  Casey’s June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi): Federally listed as Endangered;  Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius): Federally and State‐listed as Endangered and CVMSHCP covered species;  Desert slender salamander (Batrachoseps major aridus) Federally and State‐listed as Endangered;  Coachella Valley fringe‐toed lizard (Uma inornata): Federally listed as Threatened, State listed as Endangered, and CVMSHCP covered species; and  Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis nelsonii) (peninsular Distinct Population Segment): Federally listed as Endangered, State listed as threatened, California Fully Protected Species, and CVMSHCP covered species. Habitat within the study area is considered unsuitable for six of the seven species identified above; however, habitat used by one of the six species, peninsular bighorn sheep, is present along the western boundary of the study area on Coral Mountain. Marginally suitable habitat for CVMV was found to be present within the study area. Non‐Listed Special‐Interest Species Of the 432 other non‐listed special‐interest species identified and discussed in Appendix B, 18 species are considered absent based on lack of suitable habitat, seven species are considered to have a low probability of occurrence, seven species are considered to have a moderate probability of occurrence, five species are considered to have a high probability of occurrence, and sixfive species were detected within the study area during field surveys. The following non‐listed special‐ interest species have a moderate to high probability to occur, or were detected, within the study area:  Slender cottonheads (Nemacaulis denudata var gracilis);  Flat‐tailed horned lizard (Phryosoma macalli);  Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia);  Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis); B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) 8  Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus);  Black‐tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura);  Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei);  California leaf‐nosed bat (Macrotus californicus);  Western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus);  Western small‐footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum);  Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis);  Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus);  Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis);  Pocketed free‐tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus);  Big free‐tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis);  Pallid San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax pallidus); and  Palm Springs round‐tailed ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus tereticaudus chlorus). Nesting bird species, including special‐interest species identified in Appendix B, with potential to occur are protected by California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800, and by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703–711). These laws regulate the take, possession, or destruction of the nest or eggs of any migratory bird or bird of prey. However, the USFWS has recently determined that the MBTA should apply only to “… affirmative actions that have as their purpose the taking or killing of migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs” and will not be applied to incidental take of migratory birds pursuant to otherwise lawful activities. Critical Habitat The study area does not lie within federally designated critical habitat. Jurisdictional Waters No potential jurisdictional waters regulated pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and no lake, rivers, or streambeds regulated pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code by the CDFW are present within the limits of the proposed project. IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Following is a discussion of potential disturbances and recommendations for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures per applicable local, State, and Federal policy. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) 9 Threatened and Endangered Species Coachella Valley Milkvetch CVMV is a covered species under the CVMSHCP. The CVMSHCP does not require avoidance and minimization measures for CVMV. Through participation in the CVMSHCP via payment of development fees, the project would mitigate for any impacts to CVMV. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Peninsular bighorn sheep is federally listed as Endangered, State listed as threatened, and is a California Fully Protected Species. Although peninsular bighorn sheep is a covered species under the CVMSHCP, covered activities must avoid any actions that will result in violations of the Fully Protected Species provisions, and take for this species cannot be provided under the CVMSHCP. However, CDFW acknowledges in their comment letter to the DEIR that if the project fully complies with and properly implements all CVMSHCP measures, the covered activities are not likely to result in take of peninsular bighorn sheep. A qualified biologist specializing in this species will coordinate with CDFW and the USFWS to develop and implement measures to minimize potential adverse effects to peninsular bighorn sheep. These measures include, but are not limited to, the construction of a barrier fence along the boundary of the development. Non‐Listed Special‐Interest Species The 432 special‐interest species identified in Appendix B as having a low to high probability of occurrence in the study area have limited population distribution in Southern California and development is further reducing their ranges and numbers. These species have no official State or Federal protection status, but they merit consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Due to the disturbed nature of the site, surrounding development, and through compliance with the CVMSHCP, impacts from the project are anticipated to have a less than significant effect on these non‐listed special‐interest species. In addition, to ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, it is recommended that the vegetation removal activities be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (January 15 through August 31). If vegetation cannot be removed outside the bird nesting season, a pre‐construction nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist is required prior to vegetation removal. Burrowing Owl A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site disturbance activities. If disturbance activities are expected to start during the burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys shall be completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre‐ construction survey shall be conducted following accepted protocol and the requirements specified in the CVMSHCP (see pp. 4‐168 & 4‐169). A pre‐construction burrowing owl survey would be required using an accepted protocol (as determined by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission in coordination with the permittees and the wildlife agencies). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and, an areaas feasible, up to a 500 fee‐foot B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) 10 buffer outside the project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If a burrow is located, the biologist will determine whether an owl is present in the burrow. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged and a 160‐foot diameter buffer will be established during the non‐breeding season or a 250‐foot diameter buffer during the breeding season. The buffer area will be staked and flagged. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow. Bats NEarly season nighttime acoustic and emergence surveys in April and June 2021 confirmed the presence of at least eight nine bat species, including four with special status, within the study area. Additional The nighttime surveys were performed during the early and later portions of the maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley) maternity‐season surveys will be performed in June 2021 to maximize the probability of detection of maternity roosts, which are native wildlife nursery sites, for all bat species that may occur in the proposed project area. The nighttime surveys also enabling the gathering of and to gather more precise data on numbers and species of bats in any confirmed roost sites identified during the April 2021 survey. Although noIf occupied maternity roosts werare identified within the project areafootprint, occupied maternity roosts were identified along the edge of the project area in rock outcrops on Coral Mountain. In addition, suitable maternity roost sites within the project area could be occupied by maternity colonies in the future. Therefore, a CDFW‐approved bat the biologist will coordinate with the project team and CDFW to implement avoidance measures during the bat maternity season in accordance with CDFW’s established standards. If maternity‐roosting bats are discovered during project construction, nNo construction will occur within a 300‐foot buffer of maternity roost sites during the bat maternity season unless concurrence is received from CDFW to reduce that buffer distance based upon the bat species present and the activities occurring. Other mitigation measures that will be implemented include two‐step tree removal protocols, minimization of light overspilltrespass, and humane bat exclusion. Critical Habitat No federally designated critical habitat is present within the study area; therefore, there will be no project‐related effects to critical habitat. Jurisdictional Waters No potential jurisdictional waters of the United States regulated by the USACE or RWQCB, or CDFW jurisdictional lakes, rivers, or streams are present on the proposed project site. Thus, there will be no project‐related effects to jurisdictional waters. Habitat Fragmentation and Wildlife Movement Wildlife movement and habitat fragmentation are important issues in assessing effects to wildlife. Habitat fragmentation occurs when a proposed action results in a single, unified habitat area being divided into two or more areas such that the division isolates the two new areas from each other. Isolation of habitat occurs when wildlife cannot move freely from one portion of the habitat to another or from one habitat type to another. An example is the fragmentation of habitats within and around “checkerboard” residential development. Habitat fragmentation can also occur when a B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) 11 portion of one or more habitats is converted into another habitat, as when scrub habitats are converted into annual grassland habitat because of frequent burning. Because the study area does not lie within a CVMSHCP‐designated wildlife corridor and the study area is adjacent to commercial development, the proposed project is not anticipated to have significant impacts related to habitat fragmentation and regional wildlife movement. Local Policies and Ordinances With participation in the CVMSHCP, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The study area lies within the planning area of the CVMSHCP; however, it does not lie within a Conservation Area identified in the CVMSHCP. The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the CVMSHCP (e.g., development fees and demonstrating that proposed actions are consistent with the CVMSHCP). MITIGATION MEASURES BIO‐1: BA burrowing owl clearance surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist approved by the City not more than 30 days prior to any site disturbance activities(grubbing, grading, and construction). A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site disturbance activities. If disturbance activities are expected to start during the burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys shall be completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre‐ construction survey shall be conducted following accepted protocol and the requirements specified in the CVMSHCP (see pp. 4‐168 & 4‐169). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and an area up to 500 feet outside the project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. The pre‐construction survey is required to use accepted protocol (as determined CDFW). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and an area up to a 500‐feet outside the project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged, and a 160‐foot diameter buffer will be established during non‐breeding season or a 250‐foot diameter buffer during the breeding season. The buffer area will be staked and flagged. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow. If the burrow is found to be unoccupied, the burrow will be made inaccessible to owls, and construction may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied, owls shall be relocated pursuant to accepted Wildlife Agency protocols. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. A burrow is assumed occupied if records indicate that, based on surveys conducted following protocol, at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow on site during the past three years. If there are no records for the site, surveys must be B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) 12 conducted to determine, prior to construction, if burrowing owls are present. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Active relocation and eviction/passive relocation require the preservation and maintenance of suitable burrowing owl habitat determined through coordination with the Wildlife Agencies.If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures, consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP. BIO‐2: In June 2021, a qualified bat biologist will conduct a second round of focused nighttime surveys for roosting bats at locations where suitable roosting habitat is identified. The nighttime survey will include a combination of acoustic and exit count methods, and will take place during the bat maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley) to enable detection of maternity‐roosting bats. If maternity roosts are identified within the project area, the biologist will coordinate with CDFW to implement avoidance measures during the bat maternity season in accordance with CDFW’s established standards. No construction activities will occur within a 300‐foot buffer of maternity roost sites during the bat maternity season unless concurrence is received from CDFW to reduce that buffer distance based upon the bat species present and the activities occurring. BIO‐3: Removal of trees (including palm trees) shall occur outside the maternity season (March 15– August 31 in the Coachella Valley), which coincides with the bird nesting season, to avoid the potential for “take” of nonvolant (flightless) young. Trees and snags that have been identified as confirmed or potential roost sites require a two‐step removal process and the involvement of a bat biologist to ensure that no roosting bats are killed during this activity. Consistent with CDFW protocols this two‐ step removal shall occur over two consecutive days as follows: on Day 1, branches and limbs not containing cavities, as identified by a qualified bat biologist, will be removed. On Day 2, the remainder of the tree may be removed without supervision by a bat biologist. The disturbance caused by limb removal, followed by an interval of one evening, will allow bats to safely abandon the roost. BIO‐4: Although no construction will occur at the rock outcrops where occupied bat roosts were identified during the April 2021 surveys, bats roosting in that area could be subject to potential adverse effects from project‐related light overspill. To avoid permanent impacts to roosting bats from the installation of new light fixtures associated with the proposed development, all lighting fixtures shall have light shields or similar devices (ie.eg., dark sky compliant lighting) installed to ensure that there is nominimize light trespassoverspill on to Coral Mountain and surrounding open space. A supplemental light study will be performed to collect nighttime lighting measurements and confirm that no light trespass onto Coral Mountain is occurring; this will be submitted for City approval prior to issuance of any permit for occupancy or use of the Wave Basin. BIO‐5: A qualified bat biologist shall confirm the absence of roosting bats prior to any removal of the adobe. If bats are found or if the absence of bats cannot be confirmed, the bat biologist will install or directly supervise installation of humane eviction devices and exclusionary material to prevent bats from roosting in the building. Implementation of the humane eviction/exclusions is typically performed in the fall (September or October) preceding construction activity at each structure to B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) 13 avoid impacts to hibernating bats during the winter months or during the maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley), when nonvolant (flightless) young are present. Any humane eviction/exclusion devices must be installed at least 10 days prior to the demolition of a structure housing bats to allow sufficient time for the bats to vacate the roost(s). BIO‐6: To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation removal and ground‐disturbing activities shall be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (January 15 through August 31). Any vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and/or construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 1–August 31) will require that all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist approved by the City. Prior to commencement of clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys within 14 days and repeated 3 days prior to ground‐disturbing activities. . If any active nests are detected a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using his or her best professional judgment. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using his or her best professional judgment to avoid any take of nesting birds. BIO‐7: To ensure that the Project will avoid any significant construction or operational noise impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain, noise monitoring will occur for (1) all construction activities within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain, and (2) operational noise levels during any special events and at least once annually during regular Wave Basin operations, or as determined appropriate by the City Manager or his/her designee. If noise levels exceed 75 dBA, construction and/or operational changes shall be made, as applicable, to reduce the noise levels at Coral Mountain to below 75 dBA. The buffer may be modified and/or other recommendations proposed as determined appropriate by the biologist to minimize impacts. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS According to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the relatively disturbed nature of the study area, its proximity to residential development, and through compliance with the CVMSHCP, impacts are not considered to be cumulatively significant. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) 14 REFERENCES CITED California Department of Fish and Game. March 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. The Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Natural Diversity Data Base. 2019. RareFind 5. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. California Fish and Game Code. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi‐bin/calawquery?codesection=fgc. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2019. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7‐19). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi‐bin/inv/inventory.cgi. Coachella Valley Association of Governments. September 2007. Final Recirculated Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Knecht, A. 1980. Soil Survey, Coachella Valley Area, California, Coachella Valley Area. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/RP/20001025_RP_PBS.pdf B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) APPENDIX A PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) A‐1 SPECIES OBSERVED LIST EUDICOT FLOWERING PLANTS Scientific Name Common Name Asteraceae Sunflower family Dicoria canescens Bugseed Isocoma acradenia Alkali goldenbush Palafoxia arida var. arida Desert palafox Pluchea sericea Arrowweed Stephanomeria exigua Small wreath‐plant Bignoniaceae Bignonia family Chilopsis linearis Desert willow Boraginaceae Borage family Cryptantha sp. Cryptantha Tiquilia plicata Fanleaf crinklemat Brassicaceae Mustard family Brassica tournefortii* Sahara mustard Chenopodiaceae Saltbush family Atriplex canescens Fourwing saltbush Salsola tragus* Russian thistle Suaeda nigra Bush seepweed Elaeagnaceae Oleaster family Elaeagnus angustifolia* Russian olive Fabaceae Pea family Parkinsonia florida Blue palo verde Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana Honey mesquite Prosopis sp.* Mesquite (non‐native) Tamaricaceae Tamarisk family Tamarix aphylla* Athel Tamarix ramosissima* Mediterranean tamarisk Zygophyllaceace Caltrop family Larrea tridentata Creosote bush MONOCOTS FLOWERING PLANTS Poaceae Grass family Schismus barbatus* Common Mediterranean grass Scientific Name Common Name REPTILES Phrynosomatidae Phrynosomatid Lizards B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) A‐2 Scientific Name Common Name Uta stansburiana Common side‐blotched lizard Teiidae Whiptails Aspidoscelis hyperythra Orange‐throated whiptail Scientific Name Common Name BIRDS Tytonidae Barn Owls Tyto alba Barn owl Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers Myiarchus cinerascens Ash‐throated flycatcher Columbidae Pigeons and Doves Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Caprimulgidae Goatsuckers Chordeiles acutipennis Lesser nighthawk Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Common poorwill Apodidae Swifts Chaetura vauxi Vaux’s swift Cuculidae Cuckoos and Roadrunners Geococcyx californianus Greater roadrunner Corvidae Crows and Ravens Corvus corax Common raven Troglodytidae Wrens Salpinctes obsoletus Rock wren Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren Mimidae Mockingbirds and Thrashers Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Sturnidae Starlings Sturnus vulgaris European starling Fringillidae Finches Haemorhous mexicanus House finch Scientific Name Common Name MAMMALSBIRDS TytonidaeVespertilionidae Evening BatsBarn Owls Antrozous pallidus Pallid batBarn owl Eptesicus fuscus Big brown bat Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) A‐3 Myotis californicus California myotis Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers Myiarchus cinerascensMyotis ciliolabrum Ash‐throated flycatcherWestern small‐ footed myotis Parastrellus hesperus Canyon bat ColumbidaeMolossidae Pigeons and DovesFree‐ tailed Bats Zenaida macrouraEumops perotis californicus Western mastiff bat Caprimulgidae Goatsuckers Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed free‐tailed bat Chordeiles acutipennisTadarida brasiliensis mexicana Lesser nighthawkMexican free‐tailed bat B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) APPENDIX B SPECIAL‐STATUS SPECIES SUMMARY B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) B‐1 Special‐Status Species Summary Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence Probability Plants Abronia villosa var. aurita Chaparral sand‐ verbena US: – CA: 1B Sandy areas (generally flats and benches along washes) in chaparral and coastal sage scrub, and improbably in desert dunes or other sandy areas, below 1,600 meters (5,300 feet) elevation. In California, reported from Riverside, San Diego, Imperial, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. Believed extirpated from Orange County. Also reported from Arizona and Mexico (Baja California). Plants reported from desert communities are likely misidentified. Blooms mostly March through August (annual or perennial herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (washes in chaparral and coastal sage scrub) is not present within the study area. Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae Coachella Valley milk‐vetch US: FE CA: 1B CVMSHCP: C Sandy areas, typically in coarse sands in active sand fields, adjacent to dunes, along roadsides in dune areas, or along the margins of sandy washes, in Sonoran Desert scrub at 60 to 655 meters (200 to 2,150 feet) elevation. Known only from Riverside County in the Coachella Valley between Cabazon and Indio, and in the Chuckwalla Valley northeast of Desert Center. Blooms February through May (annual or perennial herb) Low. Suitable habitat (some coarse sand areas) is present within the study area. Astragalus preussii var. laxiflorus Lancaster milk‐ vetch US: – CA: 1B Alkaline clay flats, gravelly or sandy washes, and along draws in gullied badlands, in chenopod scrub below about 700 meters (2,300 feet) elevation. Known in California only from near Lancaster and Edwards Air Force Base in Los Angeles, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties, and from one historical occurrence (1928) near La Quinta in Riverside County. Also occurs in Nevada and Arizona. Blooms March through May (perennial herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (clay flats, gravelly or sandy washes, and along draws in gullied badlands, in chenopod scrub) is not present within the study area. Astragalus tricarinatus Triple‐ribbed milk‐ vetch US: FE CA: 1B CVMSHCP: C Metamorphic rock outcrops weathering into gravelly soil in semi‐desert chaparral, or (probably as waifs) at the edges of boulder‐strewn desert washes and adjacent slopes in rocky incised canyons in Joshua tree woodland and Sonoran Desert Blooms February through May (perennial herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (metamorphic rock outcrops) is not present within the study area. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) B‐2 Special‐Status Species Summary Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence Probability scrub; known from west edge of desert at 450 to 1,200 meters (1,500 to 3,900 feet) elevation in Riverside and extreme southern San Bernardino Counties. Ayenia compacta California ayenia US: – CA: 2B Rocky canyons and sandy and gravelly washes from 150 to 1,095 meters (500 to 3,600 feet) elevation in desert scrub. In California, occurs in Providence Mountains, Eagle Mountains, and west edge of Sonoran Desert. Blooms March through April (subshrub) Absent. Suitable habitat (rocky canyons and sandy and gravelly washes) is not present within the study area. Bursera microphylla Little‐leaf elephant tree US: – CA: 2B Rocky slopes and washes in Sonoran Desert scrub at 200 to 700 meters (600 to 2,300 feet) elevation. In California, known only from Riverside, Imperial, and San Diego Counties. Blooms June through July (deciduous tree) Absent. Suitable habitat (rocky slopes and washes) is not present within the study area. Ditaxis claryana Glandular ditaxis US: – CA: 2B Sandy soils in creosote bush scrub of the Sonoran and Mojave deserts at 0 to 465 meters (0 to 1,500 feet) elevation. Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and Arizona and northern Mexico. Blooms October through March (perennial herb) Low. Suitable habitat (sandy soils) is present within the study area. Ditaxis serrata var. californica California ditaxis US: – CA: 3.2 Sandy washes and alluvial fans in Sonoran desert scrub at 30 to 1,000 meters (100 to 3,300 feet) elevation. In California, known from Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Also occurs in Mexico. Blooms March through December (perennial herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (sandy washes and alluvial fans) is not present within the study area. Eriastrum harwoodii Harwood’s eriastrum US: – CA: 1B Desert dunes, 125 to 915 meters (410 to 3,002 feet) elevation (CNPS). Blooms March through June (annual herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (desert dunes) is not present within the study area. Leptosiphon floribundus ssp. hallii Santa Rosa Mountains leptosiphon US: – CA: 1B Sonoran desert scrub in desert canyons at 900 to 1,280 meters (2,950 to 4,190 feet) elevation. Known only from Riverside and San Diego Counties. Blooms May through July (perennial herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (Sonoran desert scrub) is not present within the study area. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) B‐3 Special‐Status Species Summary Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence Probability Marina orcuttii var. orcuttii California marina US: – CA: 1B Rocky soils and gravelly hillsides in pinyon and juniper woodlands, Sonoran desert scrub, and chaparral at 1,050 to 1,160 meters (3,400 to 3,800 feet) elevation. In California, known only from Riverside County. Blooms May through October (perennial herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (rocky soils and gravelly hillsides) is not present within the study area. Matelea parvifolia Spear‐leaf matelea US: – CA: 2B Rocky ledges and slopes in Mojavean and Sonoran desert scrub at 430 to 1,095 meters (1,400 to 3,600 feet) elevation. In California, known only from Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Blooms March through May (perennial herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (rocky ledges in Mojavean and Sonoran desert scrub) is not present within the study area. Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis Slender cottonheads US: – CA: 2B Coastal or desert dunes, sandy mesquite hummocks, or similar sandy sites at ‐50 to 400 (560) meters (‐160 to 1,300 [1,800] feet) elevation. Known from Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties in California, and from Arizona and Mexico. Blooms mostly late March to mid‐May (annual herb) Moderate. Suitable habitat (sandy mesquite hummocks) is present within the study area. Phaseolus filiformis Slender‐stem bean US: – CA: 2B Annual or perennial vine in Sonoran desert scrub found in gravelly washes bordered by Creosote bush‐dominated rocky slopes; 125 meters (410 feet) elevation. Known only from one site in California: Coachella Valley, Riverside County. Blooms April (annual herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (gravelly washes bordered by Creosote bush‐dominated rocky slopes) is not present within the study area. Pseudorontium cyathiferum Deep Canyon snapdragon US: – CA: 2B Rocky sites in Sonoran Desert scrub at 0 to 800 meters (0 to 2,600 feet) elevation. In California, known only from the Deep Canyon area of Riverside County. Blooms February through April (annual herb) Absent. The study area is outside of the species geographic range. Selaginella eremophila Desert spike‐moss US: – CA: 2B Shaded sites in gravelly soils and among rocks or in crevices from 200 to 900 (2,425?) meters (700 to 3,000 [8,000?] feet) elevation in Sonoran desert scrub. Reproductive mostly in June (perennial herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (shaded sites in gravelly soils and among rocks or in crevices) is not present within the study area. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) B‐4 Special‐Status Species Summary Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence Probability Senna covesii Coves’s cassia US: – CA: 2B Dry, sandy desert washes and slopes in Sonoran desert scrub at 200 to 1,070 meters (700 to 3,500 feet) elevation. In California, known only from Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Blooms March through June (perennial herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (dry, sandy desert washes and slopes) is not present within the study area. Stemodia durantifolia Purple stemodia US: – CA: 2B Sonoran Desert scrub, mostly in mesic sandy areas, at 180 to 300 meters (600 to 1,000 feet) elevation. In California, known from San Diego and possibly Riverside Counties. Also occurs in Arizona, Texas, Mexico, and South America. Blooms January through December (perennial herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (Sonoran Desert scrub, mostly in mesic sandy areas) is not present within the study area. Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis Sonoran maiden fern US: – CA: 2B Seeps and along streams in meadows at 50 to 610 meters (170 to 2,000 feet) elevation. Known from western Riverside, southwest San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles Counties. Blooms January through September (perennial herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (seeps and along streams in meadows) is not present within the study area. Xylorhiza cognata Mecca aster US: – CA: 1B CVMSHCP: C Steep slopes of arid canyons in sandstone and clay in Sonoran desert scrub at 20 to 400 meters (70 to 1,300 feet) elevation. Known only from Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties, California, principally in the Indio and Mecca hills of Riverside County. Blooms January through June (perennial herb) Absent. Suitable habitat (steep slopes of arid canyons in sandstone and clay) is not present within the study area. Invertebrates Dinacoma caseyi Casey’s June beetle US: FE CA: SA Associated with alluvial sediments, typically in Carsitas gravelly sand (CdC), riverwash, or possibly Carsitas cobbly sand (ChC) of broad, gently sloping alluvial fans at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Known distribution is an area of less than 324 hectares (800 acres) in southern Palm Springs within the Palm Canyon alluvial floodplain and eastward to East Palm Canyon Drive. Spring (late March through June) Absent. The study area is outside of the species known geographic range. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) B‐5 Special‐Status Species Summary Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence Probability Macrobaenetes valgum Coachella giant sand treader cricket US: – CA: SA CVMSHCP: C Wind‐swept sand dune ridges, spring‐dampened sandy areas. Restricted to Coachella Valley. Absent. Suitable habitat (Wind‐swept sand dune ridges, spring‐dampened sandy areas) is not present within the study area. Oliarces clara Cheeseweed moth lacewing US: – CA: SA Associated with creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) in desert scrub. Known in California from Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. This species is rarely observed in the field due to the short flight season of adults (up to 3 or 4 days) and the indeterminate timing of adult emergence. Low. Suitable habitat (creosote bush) is present within the study area. Fish Cyprinodon macularius Desert pupfish US: FE CA: SE CVMSHCP: C Desert backwater areas, springs, streams, and pools. In California, found in the Salton Sea and some of its tributaries (San Felipe Creek, San Sebastian Marsh, and Salt Creek) in Riverside and Imperial Counties. Absent. Suitable habitat (desert backwater areas, springs, streams, and pools) is not present within the study area. Amphibians Batrachoseps major aridus Desert slender salamander US: FE CA: SE Inhabits steep‐walled desert canyons with permanent water seeping from fractured bedrock. Known from only two canyons the Santa Rosa Mountains, in the Coachella Valley of Riverside County. Active year‐ round (peak possibly February to April). Absent. Suitable habitat (steep‐walled desert canyons with permanent water seeps) is not present within the study area. Reptiles Phrynosoma mcalli Flat‐tailed horned lizard US: – CA: SSC CVMSHCP: C Fine sand in desert washes and flats with vegetative cover and ants, generally below 180 meters (600 feet) elevation in Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. May be active year‐round in mild weather, but peak activity occurs in spring, early summer, and fall. Moderate. Suitable habitat (fine sand in flats with vegetative cover) is present within the study area. Uma inornata Coachella Valley fringe‐toed lizard US: FT CA: SE CVMSHCP: C Fine, loose, windblown sand (dunes), interspersed with hardpan and widely spaced desert shrubs; known only from the Coachella Valley. April through October (May is peak). Absent. Suitable habitat (Fine, loose, windblown sand [dunes], interspersed with hardpan) is not present within the study area. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) B‐6 Special‐Status Species Summary Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence Probability Birds Athene cunicularia (burrow sites) Burrowing owl US: – CA: SSC (breeding) CVMSHCP: C Open country in much of North and South America. Usually occupies ground squirrel burrows in open, dry grasslands, agricultural and range lands, railroad rights‐of‐way, and margins of highways, golf courses, and airports. Often utilizes man‐made structures, such as earthen berms, cement culverts, cement, asphalt, rock, or wood debris piles. They avoid thick, tall vegetation, brush, and trees, but may occur in areas where brush or tree cover is less than 30 percent. Year‐round High. Suitable habitat (ground squirrel burrows) is present within the study area. Buteo regalis (wintering) Ferruginous hawk US: – CA: SA Forages in open fields, grasslands and agricultural areas, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, fringes of pinyon‐juniper habitats, and other open country in western North America. Not known to breed in California. Mid‐September through mid‐ April Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat (open desert scrub habitat) is present within the study area. Falco mexicanus (nesting) Prairie falcon US: – CA: SA Open country in much of North America. Nests in cliffs or rocky outcrops; forages in open arid valleys and agricultural fields. Rare in southwestern California. Year‐round diurnal Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat (open arid valley) is present within the study area. Polioptila melanura Black‐tailed gnatcatcher US: – CA: SA Nests in wooded desert wash habitat containing mesquite, palo verde, ironwood, and acacia. May also occur in areas with salt cedar, especially when adjacent to native wooded desert wash habitat. Also occurs in desert scrub habitat in winter. High. Suitable nesting habitat (mesquite hummocks and salt cedar [tamarisk]) is present within the study area. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) B‐7 Special‐Status Species Summary Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence Probability Pyrocephalus rubinus (nesting) Vermilion flycatcher US: – CA: SSC (breeding) A rare, local, year‐long resident along the Colorado River, especially in vicinity of Blythe, Riverside County. Sporadic breeder in desert oases west and north to Morongo Valley and the Mojave Narrows, San Bernardino County. Formerly bred in coastal San Diego County. Nesters inhabit cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and other vegetation in desert riparian habitat adjacent to irrigated fields, irrigation ditches, pastures, and other open, mesic areas. Rare fall and winter visitor throughout the lowlands of Southern California from Santa Barbara and Inyo Counties south. Formerly much more common and widespread, but has disappeared entirely from Imperial and Coachella Valleys. Fall or winter visitor or rare and local breeder Absent. Suitable habitat (desert oases) is not present within the study area. Toxostoma crissale Crissal thrasher US: – CA: SSC (year round) CVMSHCP: C Dense thickets of shrubs or low trees in desert riparian and desert wash habitats. Southeastern California to Texas and northern Mexico. Year‐round Low. Suitable habitat (Dense thickets of shrubs) is present within the study area. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) B‐8 Special‐Status Species Summary Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence Probability Toxostoma lecontei Le Conte’s thrasher US: – CA: SA CVMSHCP: C Inhabits sparsely vegetated desert flats, dunes, alluvial fans, or gently rolling hills having a high proportion of saltbush (Atriplex spp.) or cholla (Cylindropuntia spp.), often occurring along small washes or sand dunes. Prefers dense thorny shrubs (most often saltbush or cholla) for nesting. Uncommon and local resident in low desert scrub throughout most of the Mojave Desert, extending up into the southwestern corner of the San Joaquin Valley. Breeding range in California extends from these areas into eastern Mojave, north into the Owens Valley and south into the lower Colorado Desert and eastern Mojave. Only the San Joaquin Valley population of this species is considered a Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species or California Species of Concern. Year‐round High. Suitable habitat (sparsely vegetated desert flat having a high proportion of saltbush [Atriplex spp.]) is present within the study area. Mammals Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat US: – CA: SSC Roosts in crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, hollows or cavities of large trees, and anthropogenic structures such as bridges and buildings; may also roost near the ground in rock piles. Foraging habitat includes grassland, open scrub, open forest, and gravel roads. Year‐round; nocturnal Detected. Suitable trees and rock outcrops for day roosting present in study area. Suitable foraging habitat in open desert scrub. Visually observed emerging from roosts in rock outcrops in the study area, as well as foraging in palo verde stands at the western portion of the study area. Eumops perotis californicus Western mastiff bat US: – CA: SSC Occurs in many open, semi‐arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral, etc.; roosts in crevices in vertical cliff faces, high buildings, and tunnels, and travels widely when foraging. Year‐round; nocturnal Detected. Suitable roosting present in rocky outcrops within study area. Suitable foraging habitat present. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) B‐9 Special‐Status Species Summary Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence Probability Lasiurus blossevillii Western red bat US: – CA: SSC Typically solitary, but sometime found in small groups. Roosts in the foliage of broad‐leafed trees or shrubs within streams or fields, in orchards, and occasionally urban areas; commonly roosts in mature cottonwoods and sycamores. Also documented roosting in mature eucalyptus trees and palm trees. Strongly associated with riparian corridors, but has also been observed in desert scrub. Year‐round; nocturnal Low. Typically more associated with riparian habitats, but has been documented in desert scrub habitats. May occur in study area. Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat US: – CA: SA Solitary. Roosts in the foliage of coniferous, deciduous, and evergreen trees and shrubs, often at the edge of a clearing. Typically roosts near the ends of branches approximately 3–12 meters above the ground. Migratory wintering sites have not been well documented, and specific migration routes are not known Primarily fall, winter, and spring; nocturnal Low. Suitable large trees present for day roosting, including athel (Tamarix aphylla). Unlikely to be present during the summer months. May forage in study area. Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat US: – CA: SSC Found mostly in desert and desert riparian areas of the southwest U.S., but also expanding its range with the increased usage of native and non‐native ornamental palms in landscaping. Individuals typically roost amid dead fronds of palms in desert oases, but have also been documented roosting in cottonwood trees. Forages over many habitats. Year‐round; nocturnal Detected. Native and non‐native ornamental palms surrounding the study area could provide suitable roosting habitat. Suitable foraging habitat is also found within the study area. Myotis ciliolabrum Western small‐ footed myotis US: – CA: SA Roosts singly or in small groups in cliff and rock crevices, caves, mines, culverts, and buildings. Forages on small insects over desert, scrub, chaparral, and riparian habitats. Year‐round; nocturnal Detected. Suitable rock outcrops present for day roosting. Forages in study area. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) B‐10 Special‐Status Species Summary Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence Probability Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis US: – CA: SA Roosts in crevices within bridges, buildings, culverts, cliff crevices, caves, mines, and trees, typically near a perennial water source. Also documented roosting in swallows nests. Year‐round; nocturnal High. Suitable trees for day roosting present. Crevices in adobe building are also suitable for roosting. May forage over open water in golf courses and water impoundments immediately adjacent to the study area. Macrotus californicus California leaf‐ nosed bat US: – CA: SSC Day roosts primarily in caves and mines, but occasionally roosts in anthropogenic structures such as bridges. Foraging habitat is predominantly in desert washes containing palo verde, ironwood, or smoke trees. Year‐round; nocturnal High. Suitable roosting present in rocky outcrops within study area. Known roosting sites in project vicinity. Suitable foraging habitat present. Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed free‐ tailed bat US: – CA: SSC Usually associated with cliffs, rock outcrops, or slopes. May roost in buildings (including roof tiles) or caves. Rare in California, where it is found in Riverside, San Diego, Imperial and possibly Los Angeles Counties. More common in Mexico. Year‐round; nocturnal Detected. Suitable rock outcrops for day roosting present in rocky outcrops within study area. Heard foraging over study area. Nyctinomops macrotis Big free‐tailed bat US: – CA: SSC Roosts mainly in crevices in cliffs, although there is some documentation of roosting in buildings, caves, and tree cavities. Found in desert shrub, woodlands, and evergreen forests. Year‐round; nocturnal Moderate. Suitable rock outcrops for day roosting present. May forage in study area. Chaetodipus fallax pallidus Pallid San Diego pocket mouse US: – CA: SSC Found in sandy herbaceous areas, usually associated with rocks or coarse gravel in desert wash, desert scrub, desert succulent scrub, pinyon‐juniper woodlands, etc. in desert border areas of Southern California into Mexico. Nocturnal, active year‐ round Moderate. Suitable habitat (sandy herbaceous areas) is found within the study area. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) B‐11 Special‐Status Species Summary Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence Probability Perognathus longimembris bangsii Palm Springs pocket mouse US: – CA: SSC Primary habitat in the Coachella Valley is dunes and mesquite hummocks associated with honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana) and, to a lesser extent, dunes and hummocks associated with creosote (Larrea tridentata) or other vegetation. Its range in the Coachella Valley extends from Joshua Tree National Park southward, west to San Gorgonio Pass, and south to Borrego Springs and the east side of San Felipe Narrows, in Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Results of recent morphological and genetic studies indicate that this species also ranges northward at least to Hinkley Valley and Death Valley in San Bernardino County. Spring through fall Low. Although suitable habitat (mesquite hummocks associated with honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana) is found within the study area, these areas are limited in size and isolated within the study area. Xerospermophilus tereticaudus chlorus Palm Springs round‐tailed ground squirrel US: – CA: SSC CVMSHCP: C Desert succulent scrub, desert wash, desert scrub, alkali scrub; will burrow in man‐made levees; prefers open, flat, grassy areas in fine textured, sandy soil. Restricted to Coachella Valley. February through August (hibernates September through January) Moderate. Suitable habitat (alkali scrub associated with fine textured, sandy soil) is found within the study area. Taxidea taxus American badger US: – CA: SSC Primary habitat requirements seem to be sufficient food and friable soils in relatively open uncultivated ground in grasslands, woodlands, and desert. Widely distributed in North America. Year‐round Low. Suitable habitat (friable soils) is found within the study area. Ovis canadensis nelsonii (peninsular Distinct Population Segment) Peninsular bighorn sheep US: FE CA: ST/CFP CVMSHCP: C Occurs on open desert slopes below 1,220 meters (4,000 feet) elevation from San Gorgonio Pass south into Mexico; optimal habitat includes steep‐walled canyons and ridges bisected by rocky or sandy washes, with available water. Absent. Suitable habitat (steep‐walled canyons and ridges bisected by rocky or sandy washes) is not present. within the study area; however, the adjacent Coral Mountain provides limited foraging habitat and limited escape cover for this species. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT AND CVMSHCP C ONSISTENCY A NALYSIS N OVEMBERM AY 2021 W AVE AT C ORAL M OUNTAIN R ESORTD EVELOPMENT P ROJECT C ITY OF L A Q UINTA, C ALIFORNIA R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022‐02‐07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 ‐ Revised Biological Report_LSA 2021‐11‐08.docxP:\CWV1901\BRA\May 2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_revised.docx (02/28/2211/08/2111/03/21) B‐12 LEGEND US: Federal Classifications – No applicable classification FE Taxa listed as Endangered. FT Taxa listed as Threatened. CA: State Classifications SE Taxa State‐listed as Endangered. ST Taxa State‐listed as Threatened. SSC California Species of Special Concern. Refers to animals with vulnerable or seriously declining populations. CF P California Fully Protected. Refers to animals protected from take under Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. SA Special Animal. Refers to any other animal monitored by the Natural Diversity Data Base, regardless of its legal or protection status. 1B California Rare Plant Rank 1B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2B California Rare Plant Rank 2B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. 3 California Rare Plant Rank 3: A review list of plants about which more information is needed. California Rare Plant Rank Extensions 0.2 Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80% occurrences threatened). CVMSHCP: Coachella Valley MSHCP Status C Species is adequately conserved under the CVMSHCP. CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Biological Resources Assessment ELMT Consulting Appendix D.5 January 2022 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com November 3, 2021 CORAL MOUNTAIN Attention: John Gamlin SUBJECT: Biological Resources Assessment of the Coral Mountain Site and Adjacent BLM Lands Suitability Assessment 1. At the request of Coral Mountain, Dr. McGill of ELMT Consulting assessed the Coral Mountain Project site and adjacent US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) federally managed lands to assess the suitability of these lands to support Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (PBS). Dr. McGill has been working with bighorn sheep since 1979. As the lead biologist for the Navy’s Installation at China Lake, CA, he worked closely with CDFW in 1986 to capture and relocate 75 Desert Bighorn Sheep from Old Dad Mountain to the Eagle Craig in the southern portion of the 1.1-million-acre base in the Mojave Desert. The relocation followed the removal of 5,000 feral burros, an exotic or introduced species from the Eagle Craigs, which were out competing bighorn sheep, a native species. Dr. McGill closely monitored the bighorn sheep population on the base over the next ten years, when he left the federal government and entered the private sector. One of his first jobs in the private sector was to develop a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Tribal HCP) for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in Palm Spring. The Agua Caliente Reservation encompasses most of the east facing slopes of the San Jacinto Mountains in Coachella Valley. The primary species covered in the Tribal HCP was PBS. Dr. McGill worked extensively with Jim DeForge of the Bighorn Institute to develop a conservation program that would preserve habitat in the San Jacinto Mountains for PBS, while permitting compatible uses of tribal land for the Agua Caliente. The Agua Caliente adopted the Tribal HCP in 2002 as tribal law as the first Tribal HCP, which is still in place today. 2. The Coral Mountain project site and adjacent portions of Coral Mountain and BLM lands west of the site were walked to evaluate the suitability of the project site and adjacent land to support PBS. PBS are restricted to the rugged terrain along the east-facing slopes, below 4,000 feet, of the Peninsular Ranges. Above 4,000 feet, the vegetation become denser, decreasing visibility and, therefore, increasing the risk of predation to PBS. The elevational patterns of vegetative associations, in combination with predator avoidance behavior, has resulted in PBS using a narrow band of elevation, from 800 to 3,400 feet, on the lower slopes of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. The population of PBS in the Peninsular Ranges was listed as endangered in 1998. At the lowest elevation of their range, PBS movement onto the valley floor is very limited because of the typical hesitancy to venture far from escape terrain. Their habitat can be visualized as a long, narrow band that runs north to south along the lower elevations of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains but still within areas of steep terrain. November 3, 2021 Page 2 3. Habitat modification that can attract PBS creates threats in the form of collisions with vehicles, poisoning by toxic landscape plants, entanglement in wire fences, harassment by dogs, increased predation by native predators, coyote and mountain lion, and exposure to toxins such as herbicides and insecticides. The conservation needs for PBS in the Santa Rosa Mountains include: • Steep topography for lambing and rearing habitat and for escaping predators; • Open terrain with good visibility to allow PBS to detect predators visually; and • Alluvial fans and washes for forage during cooler months and for water during the summer months. 4. Based on observation made during the site visit, the southwestern side of Coral Mountain and some of the hilly habitat between the southern end of Coral Mountain and the eastern slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains areas, where there is a potential for PBS to move from the Santa Rosa Mountains into the hilly habitat and then over to Coral Mountain. The collar data from CDFW seems to suggest this. Venturing off Coral Mountain onto the valley floor area on the east side at the west boundary of the project site would subject PBS to the threats mentioned above. A well-designed and maintained fence will eliminate these potential threats to PBS from site development The project site does not offer the steep topography needed for lambing, rearing habitat or escape cover to avoid predators. Without these features, the project does not provide suitable PBS habitat. Coral Mountain, adjacent to the project site, does provide limited foraging habitat and limited escape cover. Plus, the intervening area between Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains (hilly terrain) that constitutes BLM Lands, while providing some escape cover, does expose those PBS venturing out of the Santa Rosas to predation by coyotes and other large predators. The fence will prevent PBS from exiting Coral Mountain onto the site, where there is no escape cover and where they would be very vulnerable to predation and exposure to toxic plants, herbicides and insecticides. PBS will still be able to transverse the open space associated with the BLM lands between the Santa Rosas and Coral Mountain but will not be able to migrate off Coral Mountain onto the valley floor area of the project site. Escape cover is limited but present in the intervening area between the Santa Rosas and Coral Mountain. The collar data does show that the movement from the Santa Rosas to Coral Mountain is very limited compared to movement within the Santa Rosa Mountains. Coachella Valley MSHCP Consistency Analysis 5. PBS in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountain ranges is a covered species under the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) CVMSHCP. PBS Habitat within these two mountain ranges are part of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, one of twenty- one Conservation Areas that comprise the Reserve System identified in the CVAG CVMSHCP. There are 211,070 acres within this Conservation Area, 55,890 of which are considered Essential Habitat for PBS. The City of La Quinta’s requirement is to contribute 2,545 acres of PBS habitat within the City’s boundaries as part of the Conservation Area to the Reserve. 6. The Coral Mountain Project Site is not within the boundaries of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area and, therefore, is not obligated to set aside land as part of the City’s conservation requirements under the Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) November 3, 2021 Page 3 process. Although the Project is 0.62 mile east of the Conservation Area’s boundary (see Exhibit 1, CVMSHCP Conservation Areas), due to the occasional use of Coral Mountain by PBS, I recommend including the following Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in the Conditions of Approval to avoid or minimize indirect impacts to PBS. 7. Avoidance and minimization measures identified for PBS habitat include: a. Covered Activities (permitted activities under the CVMSHCP) in PBS habitat within the designated conservation areas will be conducted outside of January 1 through June 30, PBS lambing season unless authorized under a minor amendment to the Plan and with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies. This measure does not apply because no development activities are proposed within the CVMSHCP Conservation Area (see CVMSHCP p. 4-176). b. New projects within or adjacent to CVMSHCP Conservation Areas shall not use toxic or invasive plant species in landscaping. Table 4-112 in the CVMSHCP provides a list of acceptable plant species, while Table 4-113 lists prohibited plant species. This measure applies to the western boundary of the project that is adjacent to Coral Mountain and other BLM open space land. 8. Land Use Adjacency Guidelines require that projects adjacent to a Conservation Area adhere to the following guidelines: a. Drainage- The proposed development shall include plans to ensure that the quality and quantity of runoff discharged to the Conservation Area is not altered in an adverse way when compared to pre-project conditions. Stormwater systems will be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotics plant material or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources, i.e., PBS habitat, with the Conservation Area; b. Toxics- Land uses that use chemicals or generated byproducts that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that applications of the chemicals do not discharge into the adjacent Conservation Area. c. Lighting- Lighting shall be shielded and directed towards developed areas. Landscaping shielding or other methods shall be incorporated in project design to minimize effects of lighting adjacent to or within the Conservation Area in accordance with guidelines to be included in an Implementation Manual. d. Noise- Proposed Development adjacent to the Conservation Area that generate noise in excess of 75 dBA shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls, as appropriate, to minimize the effects of noise on the Conservation Area, in accordance with guidelines made available in the Implementation Manual. e. Barriers- The development shall incorporate barriers in project design to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animals, predators, illegal trespass or dumping in a Conservation Area. Barriers may include native landscape, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls November 3, 2021 Page 4 and use/or signage. Exhibit 2, Sheep Protection Plan, is a conceptual fencing plan for the project site. f. Grading/Land Development- Manufactured slopes shall not extend into a Conservation Area. g. Invasives- The Specific Plan plant palette (Table 3 in Section 4.4.3) will include approved plant species listed as “Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (CVMSHCP Table 4-112) and will avoid plant species listed as “Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants” (MSHCP Table 4-113) in certain open space areas and on lots adjoining the sheep barrier (refer to Exhibit 2) consistent with the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines. Restricting the plant palette on the open space areas and lots on the western boundary of the site, as defined in Exhibit 2, will avoid potential impacts to individual PBS that may access this portion of the site. 9. The applicable Avoidance/Minimization Measures and project design features included to be consistent with the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines discussed above will be memorialized as part of the Specific Plan included as part of the project or incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the project and used to guide development activities, and operational and maintenance programs throughout the life of the development. Adherence to this guidance in Specific Plan and Conditions of Approval will ensure that development and operation of the project is consistent with the conservation goals and objectives for PBS identified in the CVMSHCP and that the project does not result in indirect impacts to the Conservation Area or any essential habitat identified for the PBS. As a result, the project will not result in impacts on PBS. Please do not hesitate to contact Tom McGill at (951) 285-6014 or tmcgill@elmtconsulting.com should you have any questions. Sincerely, Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. Managing Director Attachments: Exhibit 1: CVMSHCP Conservation Areas Exhibit 2: Sheep Protection Plan CVMSHCP Conservation AreasCORAL MOUNTAIN Exhibit 3 O Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, CVMSHCP, Riverside County Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation A rea 0 1 20.5 Miles Legend Project Site Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area 0.62 mile Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN 35 2.5 SHEEP PROTECTION PLAN The project includes specific measures to ensure that Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (PBS) are restricted from entering the project and to promote proper human interactions between residents/guests and PBS. 2.5.1 Barrier Plan The Specific Plan will incorporate fencing and walls along the entire project perimeter as shown on Figure 13 Conceptual PBS Barrier Plan. This will serve as a physical barrier to prevent Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS) from accessing the site. The fence/wall design will be approved by the City of La Quinta in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CA DFW). It will draw from the prototypical fencing types described in the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) “PBS Barrier Project” as shown in Figure 14 Typical PBS Fence Cross Section and Figures 15a & b Representative PBS Fence Photos, and will be consistent with the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Additionally, Tribal monitoring will apply to the fence construction and trail alignment in any areas containing Tribal cultural resources per City of La Quinta requirements. 2.5.2 Plant Palette The Specific Plan plant palette (Table 3 in Section 4.4.3) will include approved specimens listed as “Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (CVMSHCP Table 4-112) and will avoid specimens listed as “Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants” (MSHCP Table 4-113) in certain open spaces areas and on lots adjoining a sheep barrier as shown on Figure 13. In addition, the approved project plant palette will be referenced in the Project CC&Rs and will be enforceable by the property owners’ association for the life of the project. 2.5.3 Education Program The project will prepare collateral materials for dissemination to buyers and hotel guests that educate and inform regarding the local environmental setting, including proper interactions with PBS. Additionally, Coral Mountain intends to collaborate with the Desert Recreation District regarding the planned public trail connection through the property. DRD’s master plan envisions interpretative materials on the trail and markers intended to educate and inform experiences regarding the local setting, including desert flora and fauna. A V E N U E 5 8A V E N U E 6 0M A D I S O N S T R E E TOPTIONAL GATE25' MIN. WIDTHCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT SPECIFIC PLANExhibit Date: November 30, 2021MSACONSULTINGINC.MSACONSULTINGINC.COM,>PLANNING>CIVIL ENGINEERING>LAND SURVEYINGNORTHCONCEPTUAL PBS BARRIER PLANSource: MSA Consulting, Inc.FIGURE 13PAGE 36N.T.S.Legend:Project BoundaryProposed 6' CMU Community Perimeter WallProposed 8' Sheep BarrierAlternative Barrier AlignmentNotes:1.Information shown is conceptual only.Final alignment may be adjusted toaccommodate ground features andother design and/or environmentalconsiderations.2.Perimeter Wall & Sheep Barrier asapproved by City of La Quinta.3.Sheep barrier to consist of 8' high fencingas shown in approved CVCC "PBS BarrierProject" (see Figure XX) or equivalentcombination of 6' CMU and 2' decorativewrought iron or tubular steel view fenceas appropriate.4.See Table 3 of Section 4.4.3 for plantrestrictions.Restricted Plant PaletteAdditional Restricted Plant PaletteFor Alternative Barrier Alignment Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN 96 4.4.3 Plant Material Palette Table 3, Plant Material Palette, provides a list of compatible trees, shrubs, and groundcovers to be incorporated as part of the landscape design. Landscape architecture for the Specific Plan is intended to create a lush desert character of visual variety and textural interest while complying with water conserving techniques based on plant selection and technical irrigation system design. Consistent with this goal, use of drought tolerant plant material is a primary consideration in the development of the plant palette to further aid in the conservation of water while promoting this lush desert theme in the prevailing landscape image. To provide guidance to the builders and designers of future projects within the Project, the plant material palette gives guidance to builders and developers within the Project. Species in addition to those listed are to be considered in order to provide diversity; however, the plant material in the list provided is relatively successful in the unique soil and climactic conditions of Project site. TABLE 3: PLANT MATERIAL PALETTE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME Trees Acacia Aneura Acacia salicina* Acacia saligna* Acacia smalli* Acacia stenophylla* Albizia julibrissin Bauhinia purpurea Brahea armata Brachychiton populneus Caesalpinia cacalaco Callistemon viminalis Cercidium floridum Cercidium hybrid Cercidium praecox Chamerops humilis Chilopsis linearis Chitalpa tashkentenis Chorisia linearis Chorisia speciosa Mulga Native Willow* Blue Leaf Wattle* Desert Sweet Acacia* Shoestring Acacia* Mimosa Tree Purple Orchid Tree Mexican Blue Palm Bottle Tree Cascalote Bottlebrush Tree Blue Palo Verde Desert Museum Palo Brea Med. Fan Palm Desert Willow Chitalpa Desert Willow Silk Floss Tree Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN 97 Citrus Species Cupressus sempervirens Dalbergia sissoo Eysenhardtia orthocarpa Fraxinus Uhdei 'Majestic Beauty' Fraxinus velutina Geijera parviflora Humilis Jacaranda mimosifolia Koelreuteria bipinnata Lagerstroemia indica Lysiloma microphylla var. thomberri Melaleuca quinquenervia Olea europaea* Olneya Tesota Parkinsonia aculeata* Phoenix dactylifera* Pinus canariensis Pinus eldarica Pinus halepensis Pistacia chinensis Pithecellobium mexicanum Pithecellobium spinosa Prosopis chilensis Prosopis glandulosa Quercus agrifolia Quercus suber Quercus virginiana Rhus lancea Tipuana tipu Thevetia peruviana Ulmus parvifolia “Drake” Vitex agnus-castus Washingtonia filifera Washingtonia robusta* Citrus Italian Cypress Indian Indian Rosewood Kidneywood Evergreen Ash Arizona Ash Australian Willow Med. Fan Palm Jacaranda Chinese Lantern Tree Crape Myrtle Feather Bush Cajeput Tree Olive*, ** Desert Ironwood Mexican Palo Verde* Date Palm* Canary Island Pine Afghan Pine Aleppo Pine Chinese Pistache Mexican Ebony Texas Ebony Chilean Mesquite Texas Honey Mesquite Coast Live Oak Crok Oak Southern Live Oak African Sumac Tipu Tree Yellow Oleander Drake Elm Chase Tree California Fan Palm Mexican Fan Palm* Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN 98 SHRUBS Acacia farnesiana* Bucida buceris Prosopis species Caesalpinia pulcherrima Carissa grandiflora Cassia nemophilla Chrysactinia mexicana Chrysothamnus nauseosus Dietes vegeta Dodonaea viscosa Hemerocallis hybrid Heteromeles arbutifolia Hibiscus species Justicia califomica Leucophyllum Species Myrtus communis 'Compacta' Nandina domestica Photinia fraseri Phormium tenax Pittosporum tobira Prunus caroliniana Rhaphiolepis indica Rosmarinus officinalis Ruellia brittonia 'Katie' Ruellia californica Simmondsia chinensis Sophora secundiflora Tecoma stans 'Angustata' Tecomaria capensis Xlyosma congestum Sweet Acacia* Black Olive Mesquite Red Bird of Paradise Natal Plum Desert Cassia Chamisa Damianita Daisy Fortnight Lily Green Hopseed Bush Daylily Toyon Hibiscus Chuparosa Texas Ranger Compact Myrtle Heavenly Bamboo Photinia New Zealand Flax 'Wheeler's Dwarf' Carolina Laurel Cherry India Hawthorn Rosemary Compact Ruellia Ruellia Jojoba Texas Mountain Laurel Yellow Bells Cape Honeysuckle N.C.N. GROUND- COVER Acacia redolens ‘Desert Carpet’* Baccharis x Centennial Bougainvillea Species Dalea greggii Lantana camara ‘New Gold Lantana montevidensis Myoporum parvifolium Pyracantha fortuneana Rosmarinus officinalis ‘Prostratus’ Turf Verbena species Prostrate Acacia* Centennial Coyote Brush Bougainvillea Trailing Indigo Bush New Gold Lantana Purple Trailing Lantana Prostrate Myoporum Firethorn Creeping Rosemary Turf Verbena Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN 99 VINES Antigonon leptopus Bougainvillea species Clytostoma callistegioides Ficus pumila Macfadyena unguis-cati Rosa banksiae Coral Vine 'Barbara Karst' Violet Trumpet Vine Creeping Fig Cat’s Claw Creeper Lady Bank’s Rose ACCENTS Annual Color Agave americana Agave deserti Agave desmettiana Agave parryi Agave victoriae-reginae Aloe barbadensis Dasylirion wheeleri Echinocactus grusonii Festuca glauca Fouquieria splendens Hesperaloe parviflora Muhlenbergia emersylleyi 'Regal Mist' Muhlenbergia rigens Nolina bigelovii Nolina microcarpa Phormium tenax Yucca rostrata Century Plan Desert Agave Agave Parry’s Agave Queen Victoria Agave Aloe Vera Desert Spoon Golden Barrel Cactus Common Blue Fescue Ocotillo Red Yucca Bull Grass Deer Grass Nolina Bear Grass New Zealand Flax Big Bend Yucca *Species that are prohibited within certain areas of the project as depicted on Exhibit 13, Conceptual PBS Barrier Plan. **Fruiting varieties limited to trees designated for active farm-to-table growing at least 500 feet from any western project boundary; ornamental use is prohibited. “Responsible Planning Through Environmental Leadership” Tom McGill Page 1 Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. Managing Director, Senior Biologist, Senior Regulatory Specialist Since 1978, Dr. McGill has been involved in nearly every facet of environmental planning, natural resource management, special status species surveys, regulatory permitting, and construction monitoring throughout Southern California. He is well versed with the processes of numerous State and federal regulatory agencies such as US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Airport Authority (FAA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), State Water Board (SWB), State Revolving Fund (SRF), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, etc. In addition to managing numerous CEQA and NEPA documents, Dr. McGill has been deeply involved in preparing resource management plans, habitat conservation plans (HCP), multi-species habitat conservation plans (MSHCP), sensitive species surveys, and biological assessments and permitting under Section 7 of the federal endangered species act. He provides the unique combination of being an environmental consultant as well as an attorney having passed the California State Bar in 1990. Throughout his career, prior to forming ELMT in 2018, Dr. McGill managed environmental divisions for various consulting firms, directed numerous habitat conservation planning, land use planning, and environmental efforts throughout the Inland Empire, including the cities of Chino, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Rialto, San Bernardino, Highland, Redlands, Riverside, San Jacinto, and Hemet. Prior to his entry into private consulting, Dr. McGill worked for the U.S. Department of the Navy for 15 years as head of environmental management in the Mojave Desert at China Lake. Dr. McGill is also one of the authors of the multiple award-winning first ever Tribal Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan prepared for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians which established the benchmark for all future similar documents for Sovereign Nations. KEY PROJECT EXPERIENCE Agua Caliente Indian Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan – Lead Biologist. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. 2000-2005. Dr. McGill was the lead biologist for assessing conservation needs of threatened and endangered species on Tribal lands, developing a conservation strategy and preparing a habitat conservation plan. The Agua Caliente Reservation is 32,000 acres that occupies portions of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains, as well as portion of the valley floor in the Palm Springs area. Conservation requirements centered on the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep but also included such species as the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizards, desert tortoise, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, California red-legged frog and Mountain yellow-legged frog, and Casey’s June beetle. The protection Skills and Specialties •Environmental documentation preparation and management •Endangered Species Permits •Mitigation Implementation Education Ph.D., 1978, Genetics, University of California at Santa Barbara M.A., 1974, Ecology, University of California at Santa Barbara B.A., 1971, Biology, Harvard University “Responsible Planning Through Environmental Leadership” Tom McGill Page 2 of all these species were balanced against recreation uses and land development requirements. His work resulted in the first ever Tribal HCP. This project won both the State Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) and State American Planning Association (APA) awards for excellence in Natural Resources Management in 2003. North Cathedral City Improvements Project, Phase 1 – Lead Biologist/Environmental Project Manager. Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). 2015-2017. The CVWD proposed to re-establish a regional stormwater drain that would convey stormwater flows from north of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Bridge in a southerly direction to the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel (WWRSC). The UPRR Bridge was constructed over the project site but was backfilled pending future channel improvements downstream of the bridge as part of the build out of the North Cathedral City Stormwater Master Plan. This project provides a reliable and engineered channel under the bridge that will provide a long-term solution for conveying flows downstream to the WWRSC. Dr. McGill was the lead biologist that oversaw the preparation of the Habitat Assessment and Coachella Valley MSHCP Consistency Analysis, Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report, Burrowing Owl Focused Survey and Special-Status Plant Focused Survey. In addition, Dr. McGill drafted and successfully processed a Coachella Valley MSHCP Equivalency Analysis through the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission since the project was located within a designated conservation area. China Lake – Naval Weapons Center – Environmental Manager. As the wildlife hazard manager at the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake, Dr. McGill practiced a number of both lethal and non-lethal wildlife management techniques and trained airfield personnel to manage populations of wild burros, pigeons, and migratory birds. China Lake is located within the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds and over 300 avian species a year, including numerous waterfowl species, stop at water sources on the base. The airfield is located on the edge of China Lake, a dry lakebed, but cumulates water during the winter and spring months attracting migrating avian species. Large native avian species such as raven and raptors are also common. Most of the migrating birds utilized a large brackish marsh system on the lakebed, Lark Seep, located approximately 2 miles from the airfield and did not create wildlife hazards. Following large storm events, however, water would pond around the airfield. Dr. McGill would work closely with airfield personnel to monitor the use of the ponded areas by avian species. While the ponded water typically evaporated quickly and usually was not an attractant, Dr. McGill monitored the pond and had it drained when it was becoming an attractant. However, the water removal had to be strictly monitored due to the potential for fairy shrimp to be within the ponds. Dr. McGill also successfully managed the population of non-native wild burros. During the winter months, burros would gather on the runways for warmth, interfering with landing aircraft. During Dr. McGill’s first year at China Lake, two F- 18s were damaged after colliding with burros while landing. Working closely with the base commander, Dr. McGill implemented a lethal reduction program to cull 650 burros, followed by organizing a live removal/roundup program where approximately 15,000 burros were placed in the Bureau of Land Management’s adoption program. Following this effort, no burros returned to the base. For these activities, Dr. McGill conducted training of airfield personnel, prepared annual reports of wildlife hazards management efforts, and maintained the database on the management efforts and incidents. At the time, the FAA did not have formal wildlife hazards management training, therefore, wildlife management techniques depended on Dr. McGill’s extensive knowledge of wildlife, their habits, and an ability to match wildlife sensitivity with airport safety. Relocation and Management of Desert Bighorn Sheep at the Navy’s China Lake Naval Weapons Center. Following the removal of 10,000 feral burrows from the base’s Eagle Craigs between 1986 and 1990, Dr. McGill working closely with Dick Weaver of CDFW to capture and relocate 75 bighorn sheep from the Old Dad Mountains back into the Eagle Craigs on the base. Feral burrows had displaced the desert bighorn sheep from its native habitat Following the relocation, and the herd was closely managed for the next five years to ensure it successfully adapted to its new home. Diversified Pacific Residential Development, Redlands, California – Environmental Department Manager. Diversified Pacific. 2015-2017. The City of Redlands approved the Diversified Pacific Residential development of 81 residential units and four common lots, located on two adjacent Tentative Tracts. Based on surveys conducted for San “Responsible Planning Through Environmental Leadership” Tom McGill Page 3 Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and a field survey with the USFWS, it was determined that SBKR occupied 7.7 acres of the Tentative Tracts, TT 16465. Dr. McGill prepared and processed a Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), an Incidental Take Permit (Permit) under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act, authorizing the loss of 7.7 acres of SBKR occupied habitat on the project site. In addition, Dr. McGill helped negotiate the mitigation requirements for the project and the SBKR Translocation Plan to remove SBKR from the project site into an offsite conservation bank. During the removal of SBKR from the project site, an additional 9.7 acres of habitat was determined to be occupied by SBKR. As a result, and in coordination with the USFWS, Dr. McGill amended the Low-Effect HCP to ensure mitigation covered all occupied habitats. To support the federal action of the Low-Effect HCP, Dr. McGill prepared a draft Environmental Assessment in cooperation with the USFWS to assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed residential development project associated with the Low-Effect HCP. Clean Water Factory Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report, San Bernardino, California – Environmental Manager and EIR Team Member. City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBVMWD). 2013-2015. The Clean Water Factory Project proposed by the SBMWD would reduce secondary effluent that was being discharged into the Santa Ana River, conveyed from the City’s San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP) to the Rapid Infiltration and Extraction (RIX) Facility, to instead treat it and use it for customer use and groundwater recharge. The practice of discharging into the river had created ideal conditions for several State and federally listed species to thrive, namely the federally threatened Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae). Dr. McGIll, while working with a consulting firm prior to forming ELMT, oversaw multiple field surveys to document baseline flow velocities, sediment composition, and stream profile measurements within the Santa Ana River and several of its tributaries. Dr. McGill presented the data and collaborated with the Project team to support the adaptive management plan and Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS to address potential impacts to the Santa Ana sucker. Additionally, Dr. McGill provided key support in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by assisting in the evaluation of potentially significant, adverse and beneficial impacts on the human and physical environment resulting from implementation of the project. Desert Conservation Program Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) – Project Manager. Clark County, Nevada. Dr. McGill led his team in providing Clark County with biological expertise and technical support to review and amend the Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to obtain a revised Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10(a) Incidental Take Permit. In revising the MSHCP, Dr. McGill assisted the County to provide a more realistic and manageable Desert Conservation Program (DCP), which allowed the County to accomplish the goals of the MSHCP more effectively. DARPA Grand Challenge Section 7 and NEPA Compliance Projects, Mohave Desert, California – Lead Biologist. Dr. McGill managed the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Biological Assessment for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for the DARPA Grand Challenge which involved a field test of unmanned autonomous vehicle technology on BLM lands. The impacts to desert tortoise were a primary concern. In support of a race of autonomous vehicles across BLM lands between Barstow and Las Vegas, he prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA and a Biological Assessment under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Both documents were approved - the EA was issued a FONSI and the USFWS issued the BLM and DOD a Biological Opinion approving the race. Hawes Radio Relay Station – Project Manager. San Bernardino County, California. The Hawes Radio Relay Station was an abandoned Air Force facility on BLM lands withdrawn for military purposes. Dr. McGill prepared an EA under NEPA and conducted a Section 7 Consultation on behalf of the BLM and DOD with USFWS regarding the demolition of all structures on this property and its return to open public lands to be administered by the BLM. The EA was issued a FONSI and the USFWS issued the BLM a Biological Opinion approving both the demolition of structures and the return of the land to BLM management. “Responsible Planning Through Environmental Leadership” Tom McGill Page 4 Wine Country Community Plan Program Environmental Impact Report – EIR Team/Contributor. Riverside County Transportation Commission. 2011-2013. Since the Temecula Valley Wine Country region was experiencing an unprecedented level of development interest, with more than 30 new projects in process with the County of Riverside, it was necessary for the County to initiate a comprehensive review of the region's vision, policies, and development standards. The proposed project objectives included goals to guide development in the Temecula Valley Wine Country region to preserve and enhance the region’s viticulture potential and rural and equestrian lifestyle and to allow for appropriate levels of commercial development. The resulting Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan provides a blueprint for growth to ensure that future development activities will enhance the quality of life for current and future residents. Dr. McGill was responsible for preparing the biological resources section of the EIR which focused on ensuring compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP was reviewed for specific species survey requirements, riparian/riverine habitat, and urban wildlands interface guidelines. Dr. McGill was also a key contributor to the planning effort to find solutions to avoid sensitive resources and a key contributing author to the EIR biological resources section. Sycamore Canyon Business Park Project, Riverside – Environmental Project Manager. Hillwood Investment Properties. 2015-Current. The project would include the construction of two commercial warehouse buildings and associated infrastructure. In addition, multiple detention basins would be construction along the perimeter of the project site to treat surface runoff prior to being discharges off-site. Dr. McGill managed the preparation of the Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report, Least Bell’s Vireo focused survey, and led the negotiation efforts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife for impacts to on-site jurisdictional features. Dr. McGill oversaw the preparation of the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and Long-Term Management Plan for the project and is overseeing the first five years of restoration activities within the onsite conservation site to ensure the habitat within the conservation site meets the approved success criteria. Long-term Management Plans (LTMPs) for Various Projects. Inland Empire, California. Dr. McGill prepared LTMPs in compliance with CEQA mitigation requirements for the following projects/ areas with non-listed special-status species: "The Preserve" development project in the City of Chino; Glen Helen Specific Plan area in San Bernardino County; and the P&V Development area in the Mojave Desert near Barstow. The Chino LTMP provided detailed methodology for implementing mitigation measures for the Santa Ana River and the Prado Basin that addressed burrowing owl, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, Santa Ana sucker, waters of the U.S., raptor foraging habitat, migratory bird and waterfowl habitat. The Chino LTMP was awarded four AEP and APA awards in 2003 and 2004 based on the uniqueness and creativity of the approach undertaken. Lytle Creek Levee Repair and Interim Protection Project, Rialto – Environmental Project Manager. CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC. 2015-Current. The project included the reconstruction of a 100-year levee that was damaged as a result of severe storm events and the placement of riprap along existing levees to provide protection from significant storm flows within the Lytle Creek Wash. Dr. McGill led the coordination efforts for the endangered species permit (Biological Assessment) in support of the Section 7 Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to address potential impacts to San Bernardino kangaroo rat and Santa Ana River woollystar, both federally listed species. In addition, Dr. McGill managed the biological monitoring for construction activities within the Lytle Creek Wash to ensure compliance with the Terms and Conditions of regulatory approvals. Dr. McGill is currently negotiating the Section 2081 State Incidental Take Permit for impacts to San Bernardino kangaroo rat, which was recently listed under the California Endangered Species Act. CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Noise Memo Urban Crossroads Appendix K.3 January 2022 12642-14 Noise Memo September 9, 2021 Mr. Garrett Simon CM Wave Development LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80301 SUBJECT: THE WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Dear Mr. Garrett Simon: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this summary of the Surf Ranch Reference Noise Level Measurements in support of The Wave at Coral Mountain (“Project”), which is in the City of La Quinta. The purpose of this memo is to present updated reference noise level measurements from the existing Surf Ranch located at 18556 Jackson Avenue in the City of Lemoore, California. The Surf Ranch is a private facility with a proprietary wave machine technology capable of generating waves every 3 to 4 minutes. To create each wave, a large “sled” is pulled through the water using a cable system on metal rollers. Two buildings at each end of the cable system house the mechanical equipment and cable system. Throughout each wave event, the primary noise source is simply the movement of water from each wave in the lagoon. APRIL 13, 2020, SURF RANCH MEASUREMENTS Over a period of 53 minutes, ten wave events were measured at different locations at the Surf Ranch on April 13, 2020, as shown on Exhibit A. The noise level measurement locations were selected to identify the unique noise characteristics associated with different stages of each wave. Prior to each wave, the control tower announces the event over the public address system. This is followed by the noise generated from the movement of the sled and an increase in noise levels from the mechanical equipment buildings. As the sled moves through the lagoon, noise from the cable and metal rollers is clearly audible. However, throughout each wave event, the primary noise source is simply the movement of water from each wave in the lagoon . The reference noise levels suggest that during peak wave events, the Surf Ranch generates noise levels ranging from 62.6 dBA Leq at end of the lagoon, 73.8 dBA Leq in the lifeguard tower and 75.7 dBA Leq near the cable roller system. To describe the worst-case reference noise level conditions, the highest reference noise level describing each peak wave noise event of 75.7 dBA Leq at 12 feet was used to describe the wave basin/wave machine activity for the proposed The Wave at Coral Mountain Project. The wave basin/wave machine activities will be limited to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with no planned nighttime activities. The April 13, 2020, reference noise level measurements describe the original cable roller system design that placed the wheel/cable assembly above the water surface. The noise level measurements collected on April 13, 2020, represented empty sets with no surf activity or jet ski rescue sleds. However, each wave was announced over the public address system. Mr. Garrett Simon CM Wave Development LLC September 9, 2021 Page 2 of 4 12642-14 Noise Memo EXHIBIT A: SURF RANCH NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS Mr. Garrett Simon CM Wave Development LLC September 9, 2021 Page 3 of 4 12642-14 Noise Memo AUGUST 15, 2021 SURF RANCH MEASUREMENTS To describe to improvements to the wave basin/wave machine design, additional reference noise level measurements were collected at the Surf Ranch on August 15, 2021, at the same locations previously measured on April 13, 2020. Over a period of 56 minutes, fifteen wave events were measured at different locations at the Surf Ranch. The noise level measurements collected on August 15, 2021, represented active surf activity with surfers in the water with the jet ski rescue sled and wave announcements over the public address system. These additional reference noise level measurements were collected to measure the reduction in noise levels associated with improvements to the design of the original cable roller system. The reduce the operation noise source levels from the wave basin/wave machine, the Surf Ranch modified the cable roller system. This design modification placed the existing above water cable roller system assembly measured on April 13, 2020, to an underwater cable roller system assembly that was measured on August 15, 2021. This design improvement effectively eliminates the cable roller system operating noise source activities. Table 1 shows that with the cable roller system improvements, the reference noise levels suggest that during peak wave events, the Surf Ranch generates noise levels ranging from 62.4 dBA Leq at end of the lagoon, 71.6 dBA Leq in the lifeguard tower and 73.5 dBA Leq near the cable roller system. While the cable roller system improvements reduced the peak wave event noise levels, the primary noise source is simply the movement of water from each wave in the lagoon. TABLE 1: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT SUMMARY Location1 Peak Wave Noise Event (dBA Leq)2 4/13/2020 8/15/2021 L1 73.8 71.6 L2 69.3 71.0 L3 62.6 62.4 L4 71.6 73.5 L5 75.7 71.4 Peak Wave Event 75.7 73.5 1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Mr. Garrett Simon CM Wave Development LLC September 9, 2021 Page 4 of 4 12642-14 Noise Memo FINDINGS The August 15, 2021, Surf Ranch noise measurements show that wave machine cable roller system improvements reduced the peak wave event noise levels from 75.7 to 73.5 dBA Leq. This represents a noise level reduction of approximately 2.2 dBA Leq. The updated noise level measurements suggest that the peak noise levels outlined in the March 17, 2021, Coral Mountain Specific Plan Noise Impact Analysis conservatively overstate the Project related wave machine by approximately 2.2 dBA L eq. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE Principal CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix L.1 January 2022 Coral Mountain Specific Plan TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA PREPARED BY: John Kain, AICP jkain@urbanxroads.com (949) 336‐5990 Marlie Whiteman, P.E. mwhiteman@urbanxroads.com (949) 336‐5991 Janette Cachola jcachola@urbanxroads.com (949) 336‐5989 OCTOBER 18, 2021 (REVISED) OCTOBER 27, 2020 (REVISED) APRIL 1, 2020 (REVISED) MARCH 9, 2020 (REVISED) NOVEMBER 15, 2019 12615‐03 TIA Report.docx Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx iv TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... IV APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ VI LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................................................... VIII LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... X LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................ XII 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Description of Proposed Project ................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Area and Analysis Scenarios ................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Criteria for Determining Significant Impacts ................................................................................ 5 1.5 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................... 7 2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................ 16 2.1 Location ....................................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Land Use and Phasing ................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 Site Plan and Project Access ....................................................................................................... 16 3 AREA CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Area Roadway System ................................................................................................................. 18 3.3 Transit Service ............................................................................................................................. 18 3.4 Pedestrian and Alternative Facilities .......................................................................................... 18 3.5 Traffic Volumes and Conditions .................................................................................................. 22 3.6 Level of Service Definitions and Analysis Methodologies ........................................................... 22 3.7 Required Intersection Level of Service ....................................................................................... 27 3.8 Existing Intersection Level of Service .......................................................................................... 28 3.9 Required Roadway Segment Level of Service ............................................................................. 28 3.10 Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service ............................................................................... 29 3.11 Existing Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis ...................................................................................... 29 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC ..................................................................................................... 32 4.1 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 33 4.3 Modal Split .................................................................................................................................. 37 4.4 Trip Assignment .......................................................................................................................... 37 4.5 Cumulative Growth Traffic .......................................................................................................... 37 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 54 5.1 Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................... 54 5.2 Potentially Significant Traffic Impact Criteria ............................................................................. 55 5.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................. 57 5.4 Queuing Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 57 5.5 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology .............................................................................. 58 6 NEAR TERM CONDITIONS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 60 6.1 E+P Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 60 6.2 EAP Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 60 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx v 6.3 EAPC Phase 1 (2021) Conditions ................................................................................................. 72 6.4 EAPC Phase 2 (2023) Conditions ................................................................................................. 78 6.5 EAPC Project Buildout (2026) Conditions ................................................................................... 84 7 YEAR 2040 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 94 7.1 General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) Without Project Conditions ................................................. 94 7.2 General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) With Project Conditions .................................................... 105 8 SPECIAL EVENTS ...................................................................................................................... 108 8.1 Weekend Traffic Volumes and Conditions ................................................................................ 108 8.2 Weekend Special Event Project Land Use and Trip Generation ............................................... 108 8.3 Weekend Special Event Analysis ............................................................................................... 112 8.4 Special Event Traffic Management ........................................................................................... 112 9 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 122 9.1 Project Access ........................................................................................................................... 122 9.2 Potentially Significant Impact Assessment Results ................................................................... 124 9.3 Fair Share Contribution ............................................................................................................. 126 9.4 Vehicle Miles Traveled .............................................................................................................. 127 10 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 132 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx vi APPENDICES APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 3.3: EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.1: E+P CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.2: E+P CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.3: EA WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.4: EA WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.5: EAC (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PHASE 1 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.6: EAC (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PHASE 1 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.7: EAC (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PHASE 2 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.8: EAC (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PHASE 2 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.9: EAC (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT BUILDOUT PHASE 3 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.10: EAC (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT BUILDOUT PHASE 3 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 7.1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 7.2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 7.3: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 7.4: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 8.1: EAPC PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx vii This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx viii LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1‐1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN .................................................................................................. 2 EXHIBIT 1‐2: LOCATION MAP ................................................................................................................ 3 EXHIBIT 1‐3: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS BY PHASE ............................................ 5 EXHIBIT 3‐1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS ....................... 19 EXHIBIT 3‐2: CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT .......................................... 20 EXHIBIT 3‐3: CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS‐SECTIONS ................................... 21 EXHIBIT 3‐4: EXISTING (2019) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT) ............................................................................... 23 EXHIBIT 3‐5: EXISTING (2019) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT) ............................................................................... 24 EXHIBIT 3‐6: EXISTING (2019) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT) ............................................................................... 25 EXHIBIT 4‐1: PROJECT RESIDENTIAL AND RESORT EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................... 38 EXHIBIT 4‐2: PROJECT SHOPPING CENTER EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................................... 39 EXHIBIT 4‐3: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES ............................... 40 EXHIBIT 4‐4: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .............................. 41 EXHIBIT 4‐5: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ............................... 42 EXHIBIT 4‐6: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES ............................... 43 EXHIBIT 4‐7: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .............................. 44 EXHIBIT 4‐8: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ............................... 45 EXHIBIT 4‐9: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES ........................... 46 EXHIBIT 4‐10: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ......................... 47 EXHIBIT 4‐11: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ......................... 48 EXHIBIT 4‐12: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP ............................................................. 51 EXHIBIT 6‐1: E+P AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES ............................................................... 61 EXHIBIT 6‐2: E+P AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ......................................................................... 62 EXHIBIT 6‐3: E+P PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ......................................................................... 63 EXHIBIT 6‐4: EAP AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES ............................................................... 66 EXHIBIT 6‐5: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ....... 67 EXHIBIT 6‐6: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ....... 68 EXHIBIT 6‐7: EAPC PHASE 1 (2021) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ..................................................... 73 EXHIBIT 6‐8: EAPC PHASE 1 (2021) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................... 74 EXHIBIT 6‐9: EAPC PHASE 1 (2021) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................... 75 EXHIBIT 6‐10: EAPC PHASE 2 (2023) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ................................................... 79 EXHIBIT 6‐11: EAPC PHASE 2 (2023) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................. 80 EXHIBIT 6‐12: EAPC PHASE 2 (2023) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................. 81 EXHIBIT 6‐13: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES .................................. 85 EXHIBIT 6‐14: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................. 86 EXHIBIT 6‐15: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................. 87 EXHIBIT 7‐1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ........................................................ 95 EXHIBIT 7‐2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................. 96 EXHIBIT 7‐3: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................. 97 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx ix EXHIBIT 7‐4: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ...................................................................................... 98 EXHIBIT 7‐5: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................... 99 EXHIBIT 7‐6: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................................................................. 100 EXHIBIT 8‐1: EXISTING (2020) WEEKEND PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ............................... 110 EXHIBIT 8‐2: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT, PROJECT ONLY) ........................................................... 113 EXHIBIT 8‐3: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT ARRIVAL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (PROJECT ONLY) ................................. 114 EXHIBIT 8‐4: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT DEPARTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (PROJECT ONLY) ............................ 115 EXHIBIT 8‐5: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT ARRIVAL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ........................................................... 116 EXHIBIT 8‐6: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT DEPARTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ...................................................... 117 EXHIBIT 8‐7: EVENT OPERATIONS PLANNING SCHEDULE .................................................................. 121 EXHIBIT 9‐1: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 123 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx x LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ................................................................................. 3 TABLE 1‐2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ....................................................................... 5 TABLE 1‐3: IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS E OR LOS F ............... 6 TABLE 1‐4: SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ........... 1 TABLE 1‐5: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS .......................................................... 2 TABLE 1‐6: SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS .................... 3 TABLE 1‐7: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS ................................................................... 4 TABLE 3‐1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS ................................................................... 26 TABLE 3‐2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS ........................................................ 27 TABLE 3‐3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS ............................................ 30 TABLE 3‐4: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS .................................. 31 TABLE 4‐1: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ................................................... 34 TABLE 4‐2: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ................................................... 35 TABLE 4‐3: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ................................................ 36 TABLE 4‐4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY ......................................................... 49 TABLE 5‐1: IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS E OR LOS F ............. 56 TABLE 6‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ................................ 64 TABLE 6‐2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ...... 65 TABLE 6‐3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 70 TABLE 6‐4: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 71 TABLE 6‐5: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 1 (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 76 TABLE 6‐6: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 1 (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 77 TABLE 6‐7: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 2 (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 82 TABLE 6‐8: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 2 (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 83 TABLE 6‐9: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 2 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 88 TABLE 6‐10: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 2 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ................................................................... 90 TABLE 6‐11: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 92 TABLE 7‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 101 TABLE 7‐2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 102 TABLE 7‐3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 103 TABLE 7‐4: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 104 TABLE 7‐5: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 107 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx xi TABLE 8‐1: WEEKEND INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS ................................................................. 108 TABLE 8‐2: EXISTING 2019 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR & 2020 SATURDAY MID‐DAY PEAK HOUR COMPARISON ................................................................................................................. 109 TABLE 8‐3: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ‐ WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT ............................... 111 TABLE 8‐4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 118 TABLE 8‐5: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 120 TABLE 9‐1: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS .............................................................................. 128 TABLE 9‐2: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ................................................. 129 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx xii LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (1) Reference ADT Average Daily Traffic Av Avenue Caltrans California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIP Capital Improvement Program CMP Congestion Management Program CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments DIF Development Impact Fee Dr Drive E+P Existing Plus Project EAP Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project EAPC Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative FAR Floor to Area Ratio FHWA Federal Highway Administration HCM Highway Capacity Manual Hwy Highway ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers LOS Level of Service MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NEV Neighborhood Electric Vehicle PHF Peak Hour Factor Project Coral Mountain Specific Plan RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission RTP Regional Transportation Plan SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy sf Square Feet St Street TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee V/C Volume‐to‐Capacity VPH Vehicles per Hour Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx xiii This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of La Quinta. The Project is generally located on the southwest corner of re‐aligned Madison Street at 58th Avenue as shown on Exhibit 1‐1. The purpose of this TIA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project, and recommend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions. As coordinated with City of La Quinta staff, this TIA has been prepared in accordance with the City of La Quinta’s Traffic Study Guidelines (Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, dated July October 2313, 20152017) and Engineering Bulletin #10‐01 (dated August 9, 2010). To ensure that this TIA satisfies the City of La Quinta’s traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a traffic study scoping package for review by City staff prior to the preparation of this report. The Agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The Agreement approved by the City is included in Appendix 1.1. 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The Project consists of a master planned themed resort comprised of a wave basin, a 150‐key hotel (with 1,900 square feet bar, 1,400 square feet restaurant, 4,200 square feet kitchen, 1,100 rooftop bar, 1,200 pool bar & grill, and 4,200 square feet spa), 104 attached dwelling units, 496 detached dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of retail, wave village area (with 900 square feet shape studio, 1,600 square feet surf shop, 3,000 square feet board room, 1,800 square feet surf lounge/living room, 800 square feet surf classroom, a fitness pavilion, 1,400 square feet high performance center, and 5,500 square feet beach club), the farm area (with 2,100 square feet barn, 2,500 square feet greenhouse, 1,400 square feet equipment barn, 300 square feet tool shed, 1,200 square feet family camp, 4,500 square feet gym, 2,000 square feet outfitters, and 2,000 square feet locker rooms). In addition, back of house complex consists of 9,500 square feet resort operations, 1,500 square feet wave operations, and 1,000 square feet guardhouses. The wave basin is a private facility. The preliminary Project land use plan is presented on Exhibit 1‐1. The Project is anticipated to be constructed in phases, with Phase 1 (2021) including resort (wave basin, hotel uses, and 57,000 square feet of commercial ancillary uses), 104 attached dwelling units, 26 detached dwelling units, and 10,000 square feet of retail. Project Phase 2 (2023) adds 25,000 square feet of retail. Project Phase 3 (2026) adds 470 detached dwelling units and 25,000 square feet of retail. 2 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 3 The Coral Mountain Specific Plan Project is proposed to be served by the Project access locations 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) It should be noted that both Avenue 58 and Madison Street are classified as Secondary Arterials adjacent to the site. The separation standards for a Secondary Arterial are 250 feet between driveways, and 600 feet between street intersections based upon the City of La Quinta Public Works Department Development Engineering Handbook). The separation between Project driveways along Avenue 58 and Madison Street are over 250 feet and separation between Avenue 58 and the Project’s main access point (future signalized location) is over 600 feet. Therefore, the location of each Project access points meets City of La Quinta’s separation standards criteria. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 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. 1.3 STUDY AREA AND ANALYSIS SCENARIOS 1.3.1 INTERSECTIONS The following 22 study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1‐2 and listed in Table 1‐1 were selected for this TIA based on consultation with City of La Quinta staff. TABLE 1‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS 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) 4 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 5 1.3.2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS Through consultation with City staff, daily volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) roadway analyses have been evaluated for the following roadway segments as shown on Table 1‐2: TABLE 1‐2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS 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 1.3.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS In accordance with the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines and as documented in Appendix 1.1 of this TIA, this study has analyzed the following scenarios:  Existing (2019)  Existing Plus Project (E+P)  Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (EAP)  Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects without and with Project for each of the following phases (EAC and EAPC): 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 Detailed descriptions of each analysis scenario can be found in Section 5.1 Scenarios of this TIA. 1.4 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Potentially significant Project traffic impacts are divided separately into intersection and roadway segment traffic impacts. Intersections and roadway segments are evaluated for both potentially significant Project and cumulative impacts. The potentially significant Project and cumulative impact criteria described below for both intersection and roadway segments per the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 6 1.4.1 INTERSECTIONS Potentially Significant Project Impacts Pursuant to the criteria outlined for the analysis of study area intersections using the Highway Capacity Methodology (HCM), a potentially significant Project impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if the addition of Project trips will result in the level of service (LOS) for that intersection to exceed the criteria established in Table 1‐3 for E+P traffic conditions. TABLE 1‐3: IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS E OR LOS F Significant Changes in LOS LOS E An increase in delay of 2 seconds or more LOS F An increase in delay of 1 second or more Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 Table 4.0 A potentially significant Project impact at an unsignalized study area intersection is defined to occur when an intersection has a projected LOS F on a side street for a two‐way stop control or LOS E or worse for the intersection an all‐way stop controlled intersection and the addition of Project traffic results in an addition of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement. Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts A potentially significant cumulative impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if the addition of Project trips will result in the LOS for that intersection to exceed the criteria established in Table 1‐3 for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative Projects (EAPC) traffic conditions. A potentially significant cumulative impact at an unsignalized study area intersection is defined to occur when, with Project traffic included, an intersection has a projected LOS F on a side street for a two‐way stop control or LOS E or worse for the intersection an all‐way stop controlled intersection and the addition of Project traffic results in an addition of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement. 1.4.2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS Potentially Significant Project Impacts A potentially significant Project impact is defined to occur at any study area roadway segment if the segment is projected to be operating at LOS E or LOS F and the volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratio increases by 0.02 or more with the addition of Project traffic for E+P traffic conditions. Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts A potentially significant cumulative impact is defined to occur at any study area roadway segment if the Project would cause the Existing LOS to fall to worse than LOS D for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects traffic conditions. A potentially significant cumulative impact is also defined to occur on any study area roadway segment that is already operating at LOS E or LOS F, if the Project traffic will increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.02 for EAPC traffic conditions. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 7 1.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The results of the potentially significant Project and cumulative impacts for the study area intersections for E+P and EAPC traffic conditions are summarized in Tables1‐4 and 1‐5. As shown on Table 1‐4 and discussed in detail on Section 6 Near Term Conditions Traffic Analysis, the development of the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a potentially project specific impact. However, potentially significant cumulative impacts are anticipated at the following study area intersections, with the addition of the Project traffic as summarized in Table 1‐5:  #1 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 58  #3 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 54.  #6 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 54  #7 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 52  #9 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 50  #11 – Monroe Street at Avenue 60  #12 – Monroe Street at Avenue 58  #13 – Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard  #14 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 54  #15 – Monroe Street at Avenue 52 As shown in Table 1‐5, the project’s cumulative impact at the abovementioned intersections are mitigated to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS “D” or better) with the implementation of the improvements shown on Exhibit 1‐3 and described in detail in Sections 6 and 9. Project access improvements, fully funded CIP improvements and added improvements (if necessary) are shown on Exhibit 1‐3. The results of the General Plan Buildout (2040) conditions and recommended improvements are summarized in Table 1‐6. A summary of roadway segment volume‐to‐capacity analysis is provided on Table 1‐7. Intersection recommendations to provide acceptable operations for Year 2040 for various network scenarios are also documented. 1.5.1 EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS As shown in Table 1‐4, the intersection analysis for Existing conditions indicates that the 17 existing study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. As shown on Table 1‐7, all study area roadway segments analyzed are currently operating at acceptable LOS. 1.5.2 E+P AND EAP CONDITIONS The 22 (17 existing + 5 Project intersections) study area intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic for E+P traffic conditions. AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 8.5 9.3 A A 10.0 12.8 A B No 2Madison St. / Airport Blvd.TS 8.8 8.4 A A 8.8 9.9 A A No 3Madison St. / Avenue 54 AWS 12.9 15.9 B C 15.2 23.5 C C No 4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 27.9 28.5 C C 29.1 30.0 C C No 5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 28.6 29.4 C C 29.1 29.8 C C No 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 AWS 12.2 16.9 B C 13.2 20.1 B C No 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 RDB 9.4 9.7 A A 10.6 11.2 B B No 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 8.4 14.3 A B 8.8 14.3 A B No 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 46.3 49.4 D D 46.5 49.4 D D No 10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 8.2 9.1 A A 8.7 9.5 A A No 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 8.1 8.3 A A 8.5 8.9 A A No 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 8.1 9.4 A A 8.9 11.0 A B No 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.AWS 8.5 9.2 A A 9.0 10.0 A B No 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 AWS 14.3 12.7 B B 16.3 32.9 C D No 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 AWS 14.7 25.3 B D 16.8 34.3 C D No 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 16.6 18.0 B B 16.6 18.5 B B No 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 7.5 8.2 A A 7.7 8.6 A A No 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 8.9 8.9 A A No 19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 12.7 15.6 B C No 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 9.2 9.8 A A No 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 8.6 9.0 A A No 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 8.9 10.1 A B No 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 2 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All‐way Stop; RDB = Roundabout; 1 = Improvement 3 R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]1‐4 E+P TABLE 1‐4: SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection Delay (secs)1 Level of Service1 Delay (secs)1 Level of Service1 Future Intersection A potentially significant project traffic impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if the intersection is operating at LOS E and the project causes the delay to increase by 2 seconds or more. If the signalized intersection is operating at LOS F, a potentially significant project specific traffic impact is defined to occur if the project causes the delay to increase by 1 second or more. For cross‐street stop controlled intersections, a potentially significant project specific traffic impact is defined to occur if the intersection is operating at LOS F on the side street and the addition of project traffic results in an increase of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement. #Intersection Traffic Control2 Potentially Significant Project Specific Impact3 Existing (2019) 8 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM1Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 10.9 14.2 B B 11.4 15.6 B C 11.4 15.9 B C 12.0 18.2 B C 12.7 20.8 B C 17.357.9CF‐ With ImprovementsTS‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐27.4 32.1 C C No2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 8.8 10.2 A B 8.9 10.2 A B 9.0 10.4 A B 9.2 10.4 A B 9.6 10.9 A B 9.6 10.9 A B No3Madison St. / Avenue 54 AWS 21.347.6CE22.653.0CF33.9>80DF 36.9 >80 E F 79.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F‐ With ImprovementsTS31.4 31.6 C C 31.5 31.7 C C 34.5 38.5 C D 34.8 38.8 C D 41.2 43.6 D D 41.6 50.3 D D No4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 30.2 30.0 C C 30.5 30.2 C C 30.8 30.8 C C 31.0 31.1 C C 31.6 32.3 C C 32.2 33.1 C C No5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 29.9 31.3 C C 30.0 31.3 C C 30.7 32.1 C C 30.8 32.1 C C 31.9 33.4 C C 32.2 33.6 C C No6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 AWS 18.849.7CE19.352.1CF24.179.4CF25.2>80DF 40.6 >80 E F 54.2 >80 F F‐ With ImprovementsTS36.1 39.9 D D 36.2 40.3 D D 42.7 41.6 D D 43.0 42.3 D D 22.7 22.5 C C 22.9 22.6 C C No7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 RDB42.8 78.7 E F 44.3 >80 E F 59.8 >80 F F 61.7 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F‐ With Improvements RDB 10.2 12.8 B B 10.3 13.0 B B 11.7 16.6 B C 11.8 16.9 B C 15.1 28.3 C D 16.8 34.3 C D No8 Jefferson St. / PomeloTS 9.3 34.4 A C 9.4 34.4 A C 15.6 34.8 B C 15.6 34.8 B C 19.4 35.4 B D 19.5 35.8 B D No9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 52.4 50.6 D D 52.5 50.7 D D 52.3 53.3 D D 52.4 53.4 D D 52.458.8DE53.060.3DE‐ With Improvements‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐51.4 51.0 D D 51.8 51.6 D D No10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 8.8 10.6 A B 8.9 10.8 A B 9.0 11.2 A B 9.2 11.7 A B 9.4 12.8 A B 10.2 14.8 B B No11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 10.4 12.0 B B 10.5 12.3 B B 13.0 18.0 B C 13.3 19.1 B C 25.976.4DF30.9>80DF‐ With Improvements‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐33.3 34.9 C C 34.4 37.7 C D No12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 10.8 23.8 B C 11.0 26.8 B D 15.7>80CF16.4>80CF 52.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F‐ With ImprovementsTS‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐17.3 21.7 B C 18.1 22.9 B C 23.2 33.3 C C 25.9 38.1 C D No13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 11.1 13.8 B B 11.3 14.1 B B 15.6 27.7 C D 16.2 29.1 C D47.3 >80 E F 70.4 >80 F F‐ With ImprovementsTS‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐24.0 24.9 C C 24.6 25.8 C C No14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 AWS 31.135.7DE33.035.9DE >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F‐ With ImprovementsTS23.5 23.0 C C 23.7 23.2 C C 24.4 24.0 C C 24.5 24.0 C C 34.7 37.0 C D 35.0 37.7 C D No15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 AWS50.3 >80 F F 53.1 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F‐ With ImprovementsTS13.0 14.7 B B 13.0 14.7 B B 13.9 15.5 B B 13.9 15.5 B B 33.7 41.2 C D 34.1 44.1 C D No16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 16.3 20.4 B C 16.3 20.4 B C 16.6 21.5 B C 16.6 21.5 B C 17.7 25.0 B C 17.9 25.8 B C No17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 8.1 9.8 A A 8.1 9.8 A A 8.5 11.3 A B 8.6 11.5 A B 9.5 16.9 A C 9.9 21.5 A C No18 S. Access / Avenue 60CSS8.6 8.6 A A8.6 8.6 A A8.9 8.9 A A No19 Madison St. / Main AccessCSS11.2 12.6 B B11.5 13.5 B B17.4 24.3 C C No20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58CSS9.9 10.6 A B10.1 10.9 B B10.2 11.1 B B No21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58CSS9.3 9.8 A A9.3 9.9 A A9.4 10.0 A B No22 Madison St. / Project Access 3CSS9.0 9.7 A A9.1 9.9 A A9.6 11.3 A B No1Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).2CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All‐way Stop; RDB = Roundabout; 1 = Improvement3R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]1‐5TABLE 1‐5: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS#IntersectionTrafficControl2Potentially Significant Cumulative Impact3Delay 1Future IntersectionFuture IntersectionDelay 1LOS1Future IntersectionA potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if the intersection is operating at LOS E and the project causes the delay to increase by 2 seconds or more. If the signalized intersection is operating at LOS F, a potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is defined to occur if the project causes the delay to increase by 1 second or more. For cross‐street stop controlled intersections, a potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is defined to occur if the intersection is operating at LOS F on the side street and the addition of project traffic results in an increase of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement. Delay 1LOS1Future IntersectionFuture IntersectionFuture IntersectionFuture IntersectionLOS1Future IntersectionFuture IntersectionFuture IntersectionFuture IntersectionFuture IntersectionDelay 1LOS1Future IntersectionFuture IntersectionFuture IntersectionDelay 1LOS1PHASE 3 (2026)Without ProjectWith ProjectWithout Project With ProjectPHASE 1 (2021)PHASE 2 (2023)Without ProjectWith ProjectDelay (secs)1LOS19 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1Madison St. / Avenue 58 ‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 40.1 63.2 D E 41.5 70.3 D E ‐ With Modified GPCE Improvements TS 34.5 45.5 C D 35.1 53.0 D D 2Madison St. / Airport Blvd.TS 23.2 28.6 C C 23.7 29.7 C C 3Madison St. / Avenue 54 TS 42.9 49.0 D D 44.2 53.3 D D 4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 38.8 52.0 D D 39.5 53.8 D D 5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 36.7 53.2 D D 37.6 54.8 D D 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 TS 24.0 43.5 C D 24.2 48.4 C D 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 524 RDB 5.8 8.3 A A 5.9 9.1 A A 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 6.3 21.2 A C 6.4 21.4 A C 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 41.5 52.8 D D 42.2 54.6 D D 10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 TS 50.9 48.0 D D 49.6 53.1 D D 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 ‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 45.1 98.8 D F 46.1 103.9 D F ‐ With Added GPCE Improvements TS 36.7 50.3 D D 37.2 53.0 D D 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 ‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 47.8 72.0 D E 50.1 75.9 D E ‐ With Added GPCE Improvements TS 38.0 48.6 D D 39.5 52.0 D D 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.TS 33.3 44.1 C D 37.8 45.4 D D 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 TS 31.5 52.5 C D 31.6 54.5 C D 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 TS 39.0 52.7 D D 39.0 54.3 D D 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 34.5 53.3 C D 34.1 54.5 C D 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue TS 29.7 36.7 C D 29.7 38.0 C D 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 0.0 0.0 0 0 34.2 34.8 D D 19 Madison St. / Main Access ‐ With Cross‐Street Stop Control CSS 113.2 91.7 F F ‐ With Traffic Signal TS 7.6 9.0 A A 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 12.9 14.5 B B 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 10.2 10.4 B B 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 13.6 14.4 B B 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 2 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All‐way Stop; RDB = Roundabout; 1 = Improvement R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]1‐6 Future Intersection Delay (Secs)1 Level of Service1 Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection TABLE 1‐6: SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS #Intersection Traffic Control2 Without Project With Project Delay (Secs)1 Level of Service1 10 ADT3V/C ADT3V/CADT3V/C ADT3V/CADT3V/C ADT3V/CWest of Madison St. Secondary 3 21,000 41,600 0.08 2,300 0.11 No 5,700 0.27 6,300 0.30 No428,000 11,800 0.42 12,500 0.45 West of Monroe St. Secondary 4 28,000 2,300 0.08 4,100 0.15 No 5,900 0.21 7,800 0.28 No 4 28,000 12,100 0.43 14,000 0.50 West of Jackson St. Secondary 2 14,000 41,800 0.13 2,700 0.19 No 4,900 0.35 5,700 0.41 No428,000 18,200 0.65 19,000 0.68 Madison St. South of Airport Bl. Primary 4 42,600 6,700 0.16 9,700 0.23 No 14,300 0.34 17,400 0.41 No 4 42,600 30,900 0.73 34,000 0.80 Avenue 60 West of Monroe St. Secondary 3 21,000 43,200 0.15 4,500 0.21 No 6,900 0.33 8,200 0.39 No428,000 22,700 0.81 24,000 0.86 Monroe St. South of Airport Bl. Primary 3 31,950 53,400 0.11 4,400 0.14 No 12,100 0.38 13,100 0.41 No442,600 24,900 0.58 26,000 0.61 1 These maximum roadway capacities have been extracted from the City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (October 2017).R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]1‐77 1 = Existing number of lanes; 1 = City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity.5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity.These roadway capacities are "rule of thumb" estimates for planning purposes. The LOS E service volumes are estimated maximum daily capacity for respective classifications. Capacity is affected by such factors as intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian and bicycle traffic.2 A potentially significant project traffic impact is defined to occur on any road segment if the segment is projected to be operating at LOS E or LOS F with project traffic included and the V/C is increased 3 A potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is defined to occur on any road segment if the project would cause the existing LOS to fall to worse than LOS D for EAPC (2026) With Project volumes. A potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is also defined to occur if the segment is projected to be operating at LOS E or LOS F with project traffic included and the V/C is increased by 0.02 or more by addition of project traffic. Avenue 58Potentially Significant CumulativeImpact3# of Lanes72040Capacity1Existing (2019) E+PWithout Project With ProjectTABLE 1‐7: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSISRoadway SegmentRoadwayDesignation# of Lanes7Existing Capacity1Potentially Significant Project Specific Impact2PHASE 3 (2026)Without Project With ProjectGPBO (2040) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 11 For EAP traffic conditions, the following five study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAP conditions:  #3 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 54  #6 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 54  #12 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 58  #14 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 54  #15 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 52 EAP analysis results indicates that the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 (#7) experiences deficient operations under cumulative “without project” conditions. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. All study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for E+P and EAP traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions. 1.5.3 EAPC PHASE 1 (2021) CONDITIONS For EAPC Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions, the following four study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC (2021) conditions:  #3 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 54  #6 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 54  #14 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 54  #15 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 52 EAPC Phase 1 (2021) analysis results indicates that the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 (#7) experiences deficient operations under cumulative “without project” conditions. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate. All study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for EAPC Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions. 1.5.4 EAPC PHASE 2 (2023) CONDITIONS For EAPC Phase 2(2023) traffic conditions, the following five study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS: Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 12  #3 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 54  #6 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 54  #12 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 58  #14 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 54  #15 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 52 EAPC Phase 2 (2023) analysis results indicates that the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 (#7) experiences deficient operations under cumulative “without project” conditions. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate. All study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for EAPC Phase 2 (2023) traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions. 1.5.5 EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) CONDITIONS For EAPC Phase 3 (2026) traffic conditions, the following eight study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC (2026) conditions:  #1 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 58  #3 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 54  #6 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 54  #11 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 60  #12 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 58  #13 ‐ Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard  #14 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 54  #15 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 52 In addition, for Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 (#9), a second westbound through lane is necessary to maintain acceptable level of service. EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively impacted intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 52). Similar to EAPC Phase 2 conditions, Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 (#7) requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. For the intersection of Madison Street at Avenue 58 (#1), addition of Project traffic requires the installation of the traffic signal. Therefore, the required signal will be installed by the Project, and reimbursement to the Project developer may be provided for all but the Project’s fair share by future developments, or CIP, or DIF. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 13 For the remaining deficient study area intersections, the improvements are needed for with or without the Project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate for these locations. All study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for EAPC Phase 3 (2026) traffic conditions. 1.5.6 EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS 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). 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. Improvement recommendations identified in Chapter 8 of this report for weekend special event conditions are consistent with the improvements identified in Section 1.5.5 above for EAPC Phase 3 weekday typical operations. 1.5.7 YEAR 2040 CONDITIONS General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions includes the Travertine project currently under consideration in the City of La Quinta that proposes to eliminate the connection of Madison Street as a General Plan roadway south of Avenue 60. Therefore, the General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions analysis assumes elimination of this connection. Intersection lane recommendations determined in Chapter 7 of this report and shown on Exhibit 1‐3 provide acceptable LOS under Year 2040 traffic conditions (i.e., LOS D or better). 1.5.8 SITE ACCESS AND ON‐SITE CIRCULATION The recommended site access improvements and on‐site circulation for the Project are described below and illustrated on Exhibit 9‐1. The Coral Mountain Specific Plan Project is proposed to be served by the Project access locations 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) The separation between Project driveways along Avenue 58 and Madison Street are over 250 feet and separation between Avenue 58 and the Project’s main access point (future signalized location) is over 600 feet. The location of each Project access points meets City of La Quinta intersection spacing standards. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 14 For Project Phase 1 conditions, the following improvements are recommended: Avenue 58 should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along the commercial portion of the Project. Madison Street should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along the commercial portion of the Project. Avenue 60 should be constructed as a 2‐lane roadway along the Project boundary. For Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 (intersection 20), provide northbound cross‐street stop control. Construct south leg with one shared northbound left‐right turn lane. Accommodate westbound left turn lane within two‐way left turn lane (TWLTL) striping. Northbound cross‐street stop control should be provided for Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 (intersection 21). Construct south leg with one right turn outbound lane. Left turns should not be accommodated at this intersection. For Madison Street & Project Access 3 (intersection 22), provide eastbound cross‐street stop control. Construct west leg with one right turn outbound lane. Left turns should not be accommodated at this intersection. Eastbound cross‐street stop control should be provided for Madison Street & Main Access (intersection 19). Construct west leg with one left turn outbound and one right turn outbound lane. The main Project driveway is located on Madison Street south of Avenue 58. It is a full access location, serving left and right turns to and from Madison Street. With the Project, the northbound left turn lane serving the main Project driveway is recommended to provide 150 feet of vehicle queuing. For South Access & Avenue 60 (intersection 18), provide southbound cross‐street stop control. Construct north leg with one shared left‐right turn outbound lane. Construct west leg with one shared left‐through lane. Construct east leg with one shared through‐right lane. For Project Phase 2 conditions, the same improvements are recommended as for Project Phase 1 (see above). For Project Buildout (Phase 3) conditions, the following improvements are recommended: Avenue 58 should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along the residential / remaining portion of the Project. Madison Street should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along the residential / remaining portion of the Project. Construct traffic signal for the intersection of Madison Street & Main Access when warranted. On‐site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 15 Sight distance at the project access driveways should be reviewed with respect to City of La Quinta sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 1.5.9 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED Project VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) has been evaluated and provided in a separate letter: “Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis”, dated October 27, 2020. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 16 2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 LOCATION The proposed Project is located on the southwest corner of re‐aligned Madison Street at 58th Avenue in the City of La Quinta. 2.2 LAND USE AND PHASING The Project consists of a master planned themed resort and comprised of a wave basin, a 150‐ key hotel (with 1,900 square feet bar, 1,400 square feet restaurant, 4,200 square feet kitchen, 1,100 rooftop bar, 1,200 pool bar & grill, and 4,200 square feet spa), 104 attached dwelling units, 496 detached dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of retail, wave village area (with 900 square feet shape studio, 1,600 square feet surf shop, 3,000 square feet board room, 1,800 square feet surf lounge/living room, 800 square feet surf classroom, a fitness pavilion, 1,400 square feet high performance center, and 5,500 square feet beach club), the farm area (with 2,100 square feet barn, 2,500 square feet greenhouse, 1,400 square feet equipment barn, 300 square feet tool shed, 1,200 square feet family camp, 4,500 square feet gym, 2,000 square feet outfitters, and 2,000 square feet locker rooms). In addition, back of house complex consists of 9,500 square feet resort operations, 1,500 square feet wave operations, and 1,000 square feet guardhouses. The wave basin is a private facility. The Project is anticipated to be constructed in phases, with Phase 1 (2021) including resort (wave basin, hotel uses, and 57,000 square feet of commercial ancillary uses), 104 attached dwelling units, 26 detached dwelling units, and 10,000 square feet of retail. Project Phase 2 (2023) adds 25,000 square feet of retail. Project Phase 3 (2026) adds 470 detached dwelling units and 25,000 square feet of retail. The current General Plan land use and zoning designated for the site is Low Density Residential, Open Space Recreation, and General Commercial. 2.3 SITE PLAN AND PROJECT ACCESS The preliminary Project land use plan was previously presented on Exhibit 1‐1. The Coral Mountain Specific Plan Project is proposed to be served by the Project access locations 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) Both Avenue 58 and Madison Street are classified as Secondary Arterials adjacent to the site. The separation standards for a Secondary Arterial are 250 feet between driveways, and 600 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 17 feet between street intersections (based upon the City of La Quinta Public Works Department Development Engineering Handbook). The Project Main Driveway on Madison Street is located approximately 666 feet south of the Madison Street / Avenue 58 intersection. Both of these intersections (Madison Street / Avenue 58 and Madison Street / Project Main Access) are projected to eventually meet traffic signal warrants. A Project commercial driveway (Project Access 3) is proposed to be located approximately 280 feet south of the Madison Street / Avenue 58 intersection. Project Access 3 is limited to right‐ turns in and out only (RIRO). It is located approximately 386 ft. north of the Madison Street / Project Main Access intersection. Along Avenue 58, two Project commercial driveways are proposed. Project Access 2 is located approximately 273 feet west of Madison Street / Avenue 58 intersection, and is limited to right‐ turns in and out only (RIRO). Project Access 1 is located approximately 297 feet west of Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 intersection, and approximately 255 ft. east of S. Valley Lane. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 18 3 AREA CONDITIONS This section provides a summary of the existing study area, the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations, roadway segment capacity, and traffic signal warrant analyses. 3.1 STUDY AREA Pursuant to the agreement with City of La Quinta staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes 22 study area intersections. The locations of these intersections were shown previously on Exhibit 1‐2. 3.2 AREA ROADWAY SYSTEM Exhibit 3‐1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls. Exhibit 3‐2 shows the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element, and Exhibit 3‐3 illustrates the City of La Quinta General Plan roadway cross‐sections. 3.3 TRANSIT SERVICE The City of La Quinta is currently served by the SunLine Transit Agency, but current bus services are not located within the Project study area. Transit service is reviewed and updated by the SunLine Transit Agency periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. 3.4 PEDESTRIAN AND ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES The study area has existing pedestrian / bicycle paths along sections of Jefferson Street, Madison Street, Monroe Street, Avenue 50, Avenue 52, Avenue 54, Airport Boulevard, and Avenue 58. The City of La Quinta General Plan Update Future Class I golf cart/NEV path is proposed along Jefferson Street from Avenue 50 to Avenue 54. Jefferson Street south of Avenue 58, along with sections of Madison Street, Monroe Street, Jackson Street, Avenue 50, Avenue 52, Avenue 54, Airport Boulevard, Avenue 58, avenue 60, and Avenue 62 are planned to be a Class II Golf Cart/NEV path and multi‐use path. 26 27 28 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 22 3.5 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CONDITIONS The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected on August 15th, 2017, April 9th, 2019, May 7th, 2019, and September 10, 2019. Based on discussions with City staff, the following peak hours were selected for analysis:  Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 6:00 AM and 8:30 AM)  Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 2:30 PM and 5:30 PM) A 20% increase is applied to counts taken in August, 5% increase is applied to counts taken in April, and 10% increase is applied to counts taken in May per City of La Quinta’s EB#06‐13. The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity that would prevent or limit roadway access and detour routes. The average AM/PM peak hour intersection growth between 2017 and 2019 counts data at selected study area and nearby intersections is approximately 2.66%. The additional 2.66% growth rate is applied to the study area intersections with 2017 counts to reflect 2019 conditions. The raw traffic count data provided in Appendix 3.1 was adjusted to maintain flow conservation between applicable study area intersections (i.e., no unexplained loss of vehicles between no or limited access intersections). Existing traffic volumes with seasonal adjustments are shown on Exhibits 3‐4 through 3‐6. Existing weekday average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the study area are shown on Exhibit 3‐4. ADT volumes are estimated using the formula below for each intersection leg (consistent with 2018 TIA) 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 9.753 = Leg Volume For those roadway segments which have 24‐hour tube count data available in close proximity to the study area, a comparison between the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes indicated that the peak‐to‐daily relationship of approximately 9.30 percent would sufficiently estimate average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for planning‐level analyses. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 9.753 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak‐to‐daily relationship of approximately 9.30 percent (i.e., 1/0.0930 = 9.753). 3.6 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES 3.6.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The City of La Quinta requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in the HCM. Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move‐up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is directly related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described in Table 3‐1. 30 31 32 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 26 TABLE 3‐1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS Description Average Control Delay (Seconds), V/C ≤ 1.0 Level of Service, V/C ≤ 1.0 Level of Service, V/C > 1.0 Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. 0 to 9.00 A F Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 9.01 to 20.00 B F Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.01 to 35.00 C F Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.01 to 55.00 D F Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. 55.01 to 80.00 E F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths 80.01 and up F F Source: HCM 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 signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and queue length. The level of service and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network. The LOS analysis for signalized intersections has been performed using optimized signal timing for existing traffic conditions. Signal timing optimization has considered pedestrian safety and signal coordination requirements. Appropriate time for pedestrian crossings has also been considered in the signalized intersection analysis. Signal timing for study area intersections have been requested and utilized. Where signal timing was unavailable, the local accepted standards were utilized in lieu of actual signal timing. The peak hour traffic volumes have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect peak 15 minute volumes. Common practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15‐minute rate of flow. However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour. The PHF is the relationship between the peak 15‐minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g. PHF = [Hourly Volume] / [4 x Peak 15‐minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15‐minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour. Existing PHFs have been used for all analysis scenarios. Per the HCM, PHF values over 0.95 often are indicative of high traffic volumes with capacity constraints on peak hour flows while lower PHF values are indicative of greater variability of flow during the peak hour. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 27 3.6.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The City of La Quinta requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in the HCM. The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 3‐2). TABLE 3‐2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) Level of Service, V/C ≤ 1.0 Level of Service, V/C > 1.0 Little or no delays. 0 to 9.00 A F Short traffic delays. 9.01 to 15.00 B F Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C F Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D F Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.00 F F Source: HCM At side‐street stop‐controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for left turns from the major street, as well as for the whole intersection. For approaches served by a single lane, the delay computed is the average for all movements in that lane. 3.7 REQUIRED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Per City of La Quinta traffic study guidelines, the following LOS criteria have been utilized for the purposes of this analysis. Intersection Type City of La Quinta LOS Criteria Signalized Intersection or All‐Way Stop Controlled Intersection LOS D or better Cross‐Street Stop Controlled Intersection LOS E or better for the side street For the City of Indio, it was considered that a significant impact would occur (a) if the proposed Project causes the level of service to degrade to below LOS D, or (b) if the proposed Project causes the level of service to change from LOS E to LOS F. Additionally, significant impact would occur at the intersection level if the proposed Project causes an increase in delay of 2 seconds or more to an intersection already operating at LOS E; or 1 second or more to an intersection operating at LOS F, as indicated in the table below: CITY OF INDIO IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS “E” OR LOS “F” Significant Changes in LOS LOS “E” An increase in delay of 2 seconds or more LOS “F” An increase in delay of 1 second or more Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 28 3.8 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 3.6 Level of Service Definitions and Analysis Methodologies of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 3‐3 which indicates that all of the 17 existing study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TIA. 3.9 REQUIRED ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE The City of La Quinta has established LOS D as the minimum level of service for its roadway segments. Therefore, any study area roadway segment operating at LOS E or LOS F will be considered deficient for the purposes of this analysis. Consistent with City guidelines, the level of service E capacity has been established as the limit of acceptable capacity threshold for roadway segments. The capacities utilized for this analysis are consistent with the maximum daily capacity thresholds provided in the City of La Quinta traffic study guidelines and are summarized in the table below: ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY THRESHOLDS Roadway Classification Lane Configuration Capacity (Vehicles per Day) Local 2‐Lane Undivided 9,000 Collector 2‐Lane Undivided 14,000 Modified Secondary 2‐Lane Divided 19,000 Secondary 4‐Lane Undivided 28,000 Primary 4‐Lane Divided 42,600 It should be noted that although the ADT values are suitable for planning purposes, it is not a precise measure of capacity. The ultimate capacity of a roadway is based upon a number of factors. These factors include the relationships between peak hour and daily traffic volumes, intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian bicycle traffic. As such, where the peak hour roadway segment analysis indicates a deficiency (unacceptable LOS), a review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis is undertaken. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity. Therefore, roadway segment widening is typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the need for additional through lanes. These roadway capacities are “rule of thumb” estimates for planning purposes and are affected by such factors as intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian bicycle traffic. As such, where the Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 29 ADT volume based roadway segment analysis indicates a deficiency (unacceptable LOS), a review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis and progression analysis are undertaken. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, roadway widening is typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the need for additional through lanes. 3.10 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet traffic demand. Table 3‐5 provides a summary of the Existing conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the roadway segment capacity thresholds identified on Table 3‐4. As shown on Table 3‐5, all study area roadway segments analyzed are currently operating at acceptable LOS. 3.11 EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. Based on the peak hour volume based Warrant #3 of the 2012 Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as amended for use in California, the following 4 unsignalized study area intersections currently warrant a traffic signal:  Madison Street at Avenue 54  Jefferson Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 52 The traffic signal warrant worksheets for Existing traffic conditions are included in Appendix 3.3 of this TIA. L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 12112d1111218.59.3 A A 2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 d 1200001018.88.4 A A 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 AWS 22112012d12112.9 15.9 B C 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12127.9 28.5 C C 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112128.6 29.4 C C 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 AWS0.510.522112011112.2 16.9 B C 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 9.4 9.7 A A 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.518.414.3 A B 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 13123112111146.3 49.4 D D 10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.500118.29.1 A A 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 1101110.50.5101!08.18.3 A A 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.1 9.4 A A 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 11012d11101!08.59.2 A A 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 AWS 01!00.50.5111001!014.3 12.7 B B 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 AWS 01!012011112d14.7 25.3 B D 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>16.6 18.0 B B 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 7.5 8.2 A A 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 19 Madison St. / Main Access 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]3‐3 Intersection Does Not Exist Intersection Does Not Exist TABLE 3‐3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS #Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Does Not Exist Intersection Does Not Exist L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane Intersection Does Not Exist 37 Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes1 ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 1,600 0.08 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 2,300 0.08 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 1,800 0.13 Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 6,700 0.16 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 3,200 0.15 Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 31,950 5 3,400 0.11 R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]3‐4 Avenue 58 1 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017) TABLE 3‐4: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS Capacity2 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity. 5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity. 38 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 32 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. The Project consists of a master planned themed resort comprised of a wave basin, a 150‐key hotel (with 1,900 square feet bar, 1,400 square feet restaurant, 4,200 square feet kitchen, 1,100 rooftop bar, 1,200 pool bar & grill, and 4,200 square feet spa), 104 attached dwelling units, 496 detached dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of retail, wave village area (with 900 square feet shape studio, 1,600 square feet surf shop, 3,000 square feet board room, 1,800 square feet surf lounge/living room, 800 square feet surf classroom, a fitness pavilion, 1,400 square feet high performance center, and 5,500 square feet beach club), the farm area (with 2,100 square feet barn, 2,500 square feet greenhouse, 1,400 square feet equipment barn, 300 square feet tool shed, 1,200 square feet family camp, 4,500 square feet gym, 2,000 square feet outfitters, and 2,000 square feet locker rooms). In addition, back of house complex consists of 9,500 square feet resort operations, 1,500 square feet wave operations, and 1,000 square feet guardhouses. The wave basin is a private facility. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Project will be constructed in three phases, as follows:  Phase 1 (2021) – 12‐acre wave basin facility, a 150‐key hotel, 96 multifamily attached dwelling units, 26 single family detached dwelling units, 10,000 square feet of retail, and 57,000 square feet of commercial ancillary uses  Phase 2 (2023) – additional 25,000 square feet of retail for a total of 12‐acre wave basin facility, a 150‐key hotel, 104 multifamily attached dwelling units, 26 single family detached dwelling units, and 35,000 square feet of retail  Phase 3 (2026) – additional 25,000 square feet of retail and 470 single family detached dwelling units for a total of 12‐acre wave basin facility, a 150‐key hotel, 104 multifamily attached dwelling units, 496 single family detached dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of retail The Coral Mountain Specific Plan Project is proposed to be served by the Project access locations 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) 4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development. 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 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 33 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 4‐1 through 4‐3 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 wave basin is a private facility. As indicated in the original approved TIA scope for this Project, trip generation rates for the Wave Basin Facility from the San Diego Association of Governments recreational park (developed) rates appropriately account for this private facility. For the Wave Village area, ITE land use code 861 (sporting goods store) has been utilized and the Farm area, ITE land use code 495 (recreational community center) has been utilized. The project area land uses includes 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 basin facility will be utilized by hotel guests, but outside trip generation is also included for things like off‐site lunch, wave basin 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 4‐1, 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 4‐2 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 4‐3, 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. 4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION The trip distribution patterns for the proposed Project residential and resort components are graphically depicted on Exhibit 4‐1. Exhibit 4‐2 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. 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 Hotel5 (with bar, restaurant, kitchen, rooftop bar, pool bar & grill, and spa. Back of house resort operations included) 330 150 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 Basin Facility6 (Back of house wave operations included)‐4 12 AC 1.20 0.80 2.00 2.40 1.60 4.00 50.00 Wave Village (Studio/Retail)7 (with shape studio, surf shop, board room, surf lounge/living room, surf classroom, fitness pavilion, high performance center, & beach club) 861 15 TSF 0.27 0.07 0.34 0.97 1.05 2.02 28.75 The Farm (Recreational Area/Clubhouse)8 (with Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms) 495 16 TSF 1.16 0.60 1.76 1.09 1.22 2.31 28.82 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 (6) (9) (15) (19) (16) (35) (417) 10 41 51 33 16 49 589 Shopping Center 820 10 TSF 6 4 10 18 20 38 378 Pass‐By (25%)(1) (1) (2) (5) (5) (10) (95) Internal to Residential/Resort (3) (3) (6) (4) (4) (8) (88) 20291120195 Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181 Internal to Residential/Retail (10) (12) (22) (19) (24) (43) (516) 31 3 34111728665 Wave Basin 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 Wave Village 861 15 TSF 3 2 5 16 15 31 431 Internal to Residential/Resort (1) (1) (2) (7) (7) (14) (168) 2139817263 The Farm 495 16TSF181129181937461 Internal to Residential/Resort (9) (6) (15) (9) (11) (20) (240) The Farm External Trips 9 5149 817221 98 92 190 163 146 309 4,057 Internal Capture Subtotal (37) (37) (74) (74) (74) (148) (1,735) Pass‐By (Shopping Center) (1) (1) (2) (5) (5) (10) (95) 60 54 114 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 Hotel trip rates account for 23.5 tsf of ancillary facilities which include bar, restaurant, kitchen, rooftop bar, pool bar & grill, spa, and back of house resort operations. 6 The Wave Basin Facility trip rates account for pool area and 1.5 tsf of back of house wave operations. 7 Wave Village trip rates account for 15 tsf of ancillary facilities which include shape studio, surf shop, board room, surf lounge/living room, surf classroom, fitness pavilion, high performance center, & beach club. 8 The Farm trip rates account for 16 tsf of ancillary facilities which include Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms. 9 The 1 tsf back of house guardhouse use is accounted for in the Project rates. C:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]Ph1 TG_20201015 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 Basin Facility External Trips Project Subtotal Project Total External Trips 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Daily Wave Village External Trips Residential External Trips Trip Generation Results Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity 2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour TABLE 4‐1: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates1 Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity 2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily 41 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 Hotel5 (with bar, restaurant, kitchen, rooftop bar, pool bar & grill, and spa. Back of house resort operations included) 330 150 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 Basin Facility6 (Back of house wave operations included)‐4 12 AC 1.20 0.80 2.00 2.40 1.60 4.00 50.00 Wave Village (Studio/Retail)7 (with shape studio, surf shop, board room, surf lounge/living room, surf classroom, fitness pavilion, high performance center, & beach club) 861 15 TSF 0.27 0.07 0.34 0.97 1.05 2.02 28.75 The Farm (Recreational Area/Clubhouse)8 (with Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms) 495 16 TSF 1.16 0.60 1.76 1.09 1.22 2.31 28.82 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 (6) (11) (17) (20) (17) (37) (431) 10 39 49 32 15 47 575 Shopping Center 820 35 TSF 20 13 33 64 69 133 1,321 Pass‐By (25%)(4) (4) (8) (16) (16) (32) (330) Internal to Residential/Resort (5) (4) (9) (8) (8) (16) (161) 11 5 16404585830 Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181 Internal to Residential/Retail (11) (12) (23) (21) (26) (47) (564) 3033391524617 Wave Basin 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 Wave Village 861 15 TSF 3 2 5 16 15 31 431 Internal to Residential/Resort (1) (1) (2) (7) (7) (14) (168) 2139817263 The Farm 495 16TSF181129181937461 Internal to Residential/Resort (9) (6) (15) (9) (11) (20) (240) The Farm External Trips 9 5149 817221 112 101 213 209 195 404 5,000 Internal Capture Subtotal (41) (41) (82) (82) (82) (164) (1,892) Pass‐By (Shopping Center) (4) (4) (8) (16) (16) (32) (330) 67 56 123 111 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 Hotel trip rates account for 23.5 tsf of ancillary facilities which include bar, restaurant, kitchen, rooftop bar, pool bar & grill, spa, and back of house resort operations. 6 The Wave Basin Facility trip rates account for pool area and 1.5 tsf of back of house wave operations. 7 Wave Village trip rates account for 15 tsf of ancillary facilities which include shape studio, surf shop, board room, surf lounge/living room, surf classroom, fitness pavilion, high performance center, & beach club. 8 The Farm trip rates account for 16 tsf of ancillary facilities which include Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms. 9 The 1 tsf back of house guardhouse use is accounted for in the Project rates. C:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]Ph2 TG_20201015 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 Basin Facility External Trips Project Subtotal Project Total External Trips 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Daily Wave Village External Trips Residential External Trips Trip Generation Results Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity 2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour TABLE 4‐2: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates1 Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity 2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily 42 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 Hotel5 (with bar, restaurant, kitchen, rooftop bar, pool bar & grill, and spa. Back of house resort operations included) 330 150 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 Basin Facility6 (Back of house wave operations included)‐4 12 AC 1.20 0.80 2.00 2.40 1.60 4.00 50.00 Wave Village (Studio/Retail)7 (with shape studio, surf shop, board room, surf lounge/living room, surf classroom, fitness pavilion, high performance center, & beach club) 861 15 TSF 0.27 0.07 0.34 0.97 1.05 2.02 28.75 The Farm (Recreational Area/Clubhouse)8 (with Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms) 495 16 TSF 1.16 0.60 1.76 1.09 1.22 2.31 28.82 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 (14) (26) (40) (50) (38) (88) (771) 91 283 374 294 168 462 4,672 Shopping Center 820 60 TSF 35 22 57 110 119 229 2,265 Pass‐By (25%)(7) (7) (14) (28) (28) (56) (566) Internal to Residential/Resort (9) (7) (16) (21) (35) (56) (560) 19 8 27 61 56 117 1,139 Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181 Internal to Residential/Retail (17) (14) (31) (23) (28) (51) (612) 2412571320569 Wave Basin Facility ‐4 12 AC 14 10 24 29 19 48 600 Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort (12) (8) (20) (26) (17) (43) (470) 224325130 Wave Village 861 15 TSF 3 2 5 16 15 31 431 Internal to Residential/Resort (1) (1) (2) (7) (7) (14) (168) 2139817263 The Farm 495 16TSF181129181937461 Internal to Residential/Resort (9) (6) (15) (9) (11) (20) (240) The Farm External Trips 9 5149 817221 216 369 585 547 419 966 10,381 Internal Capture Subtotal (62) (62) (124) (136) (136) (272) (2,821) Pass‐By (Shopping Center) (7) (7) (14) (28) (28) (56) (566) 147 300 447 383 255 638 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 Hotel trip rates account for 23.5 tsf of ancillary facilities which include bar, restaurant, kitchen, rooftop bar, pool bar & grill, spa, and back of house resort operations. 6 The Wave Basin Facility trip rates account for pool area and 1.5 tsf of back of house wave operations. 7 Wave Village trip rates account for 15 tsf of ancillary facilities which include shape studio, surf shop, board room, surf lounge/living room, surf classroom, fitness pavilion, high performance center, & beach club. 8 The Farm trip rates account for 16 tsf of ancillary facilities which include Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms. 9 The 1 tsf back of house guardhouse use is accounted for in the Project rates. C:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]Ph3 TG_20201015 TABLE 4‐3: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates1,9 Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity 2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Residential External Trips Trip Generation Results Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity 2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Shopping Center External Trips Resort Hotel External Trips Wave Basin Facility External Trips Project Subtotal Project Total External Trips 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Daily Wave Village External Trips 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). 43 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 37 4.3 MODAL SPLIT Although the use of public transit, walking, and/or bicycling have the potential to reduce Project‐related traffic, such reductions have not been taken into considerations in this traffic study in order to provide a conservative analysis of the Project’s potential to contribute to circulation system deficiencies. 4.4 TRIP ASSIGNMENT The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project Phase 1 ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 4‐3 through 4‐5, respectively. Project Phase 2 ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 4‐6 through 4‐8, respectively. Exhibits 4‐9 through 4‐11 show Project buildout ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes, respectively. 4.5 CUMULATIVE GROWTH TRAFFIC 4.5.1 AMBIENT GROWTH To account for background growth, an ambient growth rate is estimated for each turning movement between existing 2019 and each cumulative year (2021 for Project Phase 1, 2023 for Project Phase 2, and 2026 for Project Buildout) conditions. This background growth is based upon the relationship between existing traffic volumes and long range projections, interpolated to reflect the incremental growth calculated from the projections of the RivTAM. This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area‐wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on study area roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies. 4.5.2 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines require that other reasonably foreseeable development projects which are either approved or being processed concurrently in the study area also be included as part of a cumulative analysis scenario. A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of La Quinta. Table 4‐4 provides a summary of the cumulative development land uses. Exhibit 4‐12 shows the location of the cumulative development projects. 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 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 4‐4: 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 56 Page 2 of 2 # Project/Location Land Use 1 Quantity Units 2 TABLE 4‐4: 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 ‐ Report.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 57 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 1840 The Wave at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 4-12: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAP _N 12615 - CD.mxd 58 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 52 If applicable, the traffic generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the Cumulative forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects are reflected as part of the background traffic. 4.5.3 NEAR‐TERM TRAFFIC FORECASTS The “buildup” approach combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth factor to forecast EAP (2026) traffic conditions. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects traffic volume forecasts are developed, 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) An ambient growth factor is estimated for each turning movement to be utilized in estimating the compounded growth between existing and Near Term Year (2021, 2023, and 2026) conditions, accounting for background (area‐wide) traffic increases that occur over time from year 2019. Project traffic is added to assess EAP, EAPC (Phase 1 2021), EAPC (Phase 2 2023), and EAPC (Project Buildout 2026) traffic conditions. Cumulative development projects traffic volumes are not included in EAP traffic conditions. The near‐term traffic analysis includes the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:  EAP o Existing 2019 volumes o Ambient growth traffic for 7 years o Project Traffic  EAPC (2021) o Existing 2019 volumes o Ambient growth traffic o Cumulative Development traffic o Project Phase 1 Traffic  EAPC (2023) o Existing 2019 volumes o Ambient growth traffic o Cumulative Development traffic o Project Phase 2 Traffic  EAPC (2026) o Existing 2019 volumes o Ambient growth traffic o Cumulative Development traffic o Project Buildout Traffic Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 53 E+P, EAP (2026), and EAPC (2021, 2023, and 2026) ADT and peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Section 6 Near Term Conditions Traffic Analysis of this TIA. 4.5.4 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. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 54 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY This section discusses the criteria used to determine potentially significant Project impacts and potentially significant cumulative impacts. 5.1 SCENARIOS In accordance with the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines and as documented in Appendix 1.1 of this TIA, this study has analyzed the following scenarios:  Existing (2019)  Existing Plus Project (E+P)  Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (E+A+P)  Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects Plus 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 5.1.1 EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS Existing physical conditions have been disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared. 5.1.2 E+P CONDITIONS The Existing plus Project (E+P) traffic conditions analysis determines circulation system deficiencies that would occur on the existing roadway system in the scenario of the Project being placed upon Existing traffic conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the E+P analysis scenario was utilized to determine potentially significant Project impacts associated solely with the development of the proposed Project and the corresponding mitigation measures necessary to mitigate these impacts. 5.1.3 EAP CONDITIONS The Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) conditions analysis determines the traffic impacts based on a comparison of the EAP traffic conditions to Existing conditions (i.e., baseline conditions). To account for background traffic growth, ambient growth from Existing conditions is included for EAP (2026) traffic conditions. Cumulative development projects are not included as part of the EAP analysis. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 55 5.1.4 EAPC (2021) CONDITIONS To account for background traffic, other known cumulative development projects in the study area were included in addition to ambient growth is included for EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions in conjunction with traffic associated with the proposed Project. The EAPC traffic conditions analysis will be utilized to determine if improvements funded through local and regional transportation mitigation fee programs such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, or other approved funding mechanism can accommodate the near‐term cumulative traffic at the target LOS identified in the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines. 5.1.5 EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS To account for background traffic, other known cumulative development projects in the study area were included in addition to ambient growth is included for EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) traffic conditions in conjunction with traffic associated with the proposed Project. The EAPC traffic conditions analysis will be utilized to determine if improvements funded through local and regional transportation mitigation fee programs such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, or other approved funding mechanism can accommodate the near‐term cumulative traffic at the target LOS identified in the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines. 5.1.6 EAPC (2026) CONDITIONS To account for background traffic, other known cumulative development projects in the study area were included in addition to ambient growth is included for EAPC Project buildout (2026) traffic conditions in conjunction with traffic associated with the proposed Project. The EAPC traffic conditions analysis will be utilized to determine if improvements funded through local and regional transportation mitigation fee programs such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, or other approved funding mechanism can accommodate the near‐term cumulative traffic at the target LOS identified in the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines. 5.1.7 YEAR 2040 CONDITIONS The Year 2040 analysis determines if the City of La Quinta Circulation Element is adequate to accommodate future traffic at the target LOS, or if additional mitigation is necessary. This section provides recommended intersection and segment lanes to provide acceptable levels of service for three roadway network scenarios. 5.2 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT CRITERIA Potentially significant Project traffic impacts are divided separately into intersection and roadway segment traffic impacts. Intersections and roadway segments are evaluated for both potentially significant Project and cumulative impacts. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 56 The potentially significant Project and cumulative impact criteria described below for both intersection and roadway segments per the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines. 5.2.1 INTERSECTIONS Potentially Significant Project Impacts Pursuant to the criteria outlined for the analysis of study area intersections using the HCM methodology, a potentially significant Project impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if the addition of Project trips will result in the LOS for that intersection to exceed the criteria established in Table 5‐1 for E+P and EAP traffic conditions. TABLE 5‐1: IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS E OR LOS F Significant Changes in LOS LOS E An increase in delay of 2 seconds or more LOS F An increase in delay of 1 second or more Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 Table 4.0 A potentially significant Project impact at an unsignalized study area intersection is defined to occur when an intersection has a projected LOS F on a side street for a two‐way stop control or LOS E or worse for the intersection an all‐way stop controlled intersection and the addition of Project traffic results in an addition of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement. Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts A potentially significant cumulative impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if the addition of Project trips will result in the LOS for that intersection to exceed the criteria established in Table 5‐1 for EAPC traffic conditions. A potentially significant cumulative impact at an unsignalized study area intersection is defined to occur when, with Project traffic included, an intersection has a projected LOS F on a side street for a two‐way stop control or LOS E or worse for the intersection an all‐way stop controlled intersection and the addition of Project traffic results in an addition of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement. 5.2.2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS Potentially Significant Project Impacts A potentially significant Project impact is defined to occur at any study area roadway segment if the segment is projected to be operating at LOS E or LOS F and the V/C ratio increases by 0.02 or more with the addition of Project traffic for E+P and EAP traffic conditions. Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts A potentially significant cumulative impact is defined to occur at any study area roadway segment if the Project would cause the Existing LOS to fall to worse than LOS D for EAPC traffic conditions. A potentially significant cumulative impact is also defined to occur on any study Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 57 area roadway segment that is already operating at LOS E or LOS F, if the Project traffic will increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.02 for EAPC traffic conditions. 5.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TIA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as amended by the MUTCD 2012 California Supplement, for all study area intersections. The signal warrant criteria for Existing conditions are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. Both the FHWA’s MUTCD and the MUTCD 2012 California Supplement indicate that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. Specifically, this TIA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume‐based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing traffic conditions. Warrant 3 criteria are basically identical for both the FHWA’s MUTCD and the MUTCD 2012 California Supplement. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TIA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics (e.g. located in communities with populations of less than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major streets operating above 40 miles per hour). For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection. Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT‐based signal warrant analysis worksheets. It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant. 5.4 QUEUING ANALYSIS For the purpose of this analysis, the 95th percentile queuing of vehicles has been assessed at Project access locations. The traffic progression analysis tool and HCM intersection analysis program, Synchro, has been used to assess the potential deficiencies/needs of the intersections with traffic added from the proposed Project. Storage (turn‐pocket) length recommendations have been based upon the 95th percentile queue resulting from the Synchro progression analysis. The queue length reported is for the lane with the highest queue in the lane group. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 58 A vehicle is considered queued whenever it is traveling at less than 10 feet/second. A vehicle will only become queued when it is either at the stop bar or behind another queued vehicle. Although only the 95th percentile queue has been reported in the tables, the 50th percentile queue can be found in the appendix alongside the 95th percentile queue for each ramp location. The 50th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue on a typical cycle during the peak hour, while the 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes during the peak hour. In other words, if traffic were observed for 100 cycles, the 95th percentile queue would be the queue experienced with the 95th busiest cycle (or 5% of the time). The 50th percentile or average queue represents the typical queue length for peak hour traffic conditions, while the 95th percentile queue is derived from the average queue plus 1.65 standard deviations. The 95th percentile queue is not necessarily ever observed, it is simply based on statistical calculations. 5.5 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY In cases where this TIA identifies that the proposed Project would have a significant cumulative impact to a roadway facility, the following methodology was applied to determine the fair share contribution. A project’s fair share contribution at an off‐site study area intersection is determined based on the following equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to total traffic: Project Fair Share % = Project Traffic / (EAPC With Project Traffic) The Project fair share contribution calculations are presented in Section 9.4 Fair Share Contribution of this TIA. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 59 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 60 6 NEAR TERM CONDITIONS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This section discusses the results of the near‐term HCM intersection analysis and roadway segment capacity analysis. This section also identifies any potentially significant Project and cumulative traffic impacts to the study area intersections and roadway segments. 6.1 E+P CONDITIONS E+P ADT, weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 6‐1 through 6‐3, respectively. 6.1.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under E+P traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with those described in Section 5.1.2 E+P Conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6‐1, which indicates that the study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable level of service, with existing geometry. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for E+P traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.1 of this TIA. 6.1.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are typically used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 6‐2 provides a summary of the E+P traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds identified previously. As shown on Table 6‐2, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for E+P traffic conditions. 6.1.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area intersections for E+P traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.2). No additional intersections (beyond the four that satisfy signal warrants for Existing conditions) are projected to satisfy traffic signal warrants for E+P conditions. 6.2 EAP CONDITIONS EAP ADT, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 6‐4 through 6‐6, respectively. The Existing plus Ambient plus Project scenario includes the entire Project and seven years of background growth. 68 69 70 LTRLTRLTRLTRAMPMAMPM 1Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 12112d11112110.012.8 A B 2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 12d1200001018.89.9 A A 3Madison St. / Avenue 54 AWS 22112012d12115.223.5 C C 4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12129.130.0 C C 5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112129.129.8 C C 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 AWS0.510.522112011113.220.1 B C 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 10.6 11.2 B B 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.518.814.3 A B 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 13123112111146.549.4 D D 10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.500118.79.5 A A 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 1101110.50.5101!08.58.9 A A 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.9 11.0 A B 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 11012d11101!09.010.0 A B 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 AWS 01!00.50.5111001!016.314.4 C B 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 AWS 01!012011112d16.834.3 C D 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>16.618.5 B B 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 7.7 8.6 A A 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 08.98.9 A A 19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 1 200201 0 1 0 0 0 12.7 15.6 B C 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!00000101*209.29.8 A A 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 0000100208.69.0 A A 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 0 0 0 8.9 10.1 A B 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement Eastbound Westbound * = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane TABLE 6‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2Northbound Southbound #Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes1 71 Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes1 ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 2,300 0.11 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 4,100 0.15 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 2,700 0.19 Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 9,700 0.23 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 4,500 0.21 Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 31,950 5 4,400 0.14 R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐2 TABLE 6‐2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Capacity2 Avenue 58 5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity. 1 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017) 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity. 72 73 74 75 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 69 6.2.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under EAP traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with those described in Section 5.1.3 EAP Conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6‐3, which indicates that the following five study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAP conditions:  Madison Street at Avenue 54  Jefferson Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 58  Monroe Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 52 EAP analysis results indicates that the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 experiences deficient operations under cumulative “without project” conditions. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAP traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.3 of this TIA. 6.2.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS Roadway segment capacity analysis based upon approximate capacities used to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand is summarized on Table 6‐4 for EAP traffic conditions. As shown on Table 6‐4, study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS under EAP traffic conditions. The addition of Project traffic is not anticipated to result in any roadway segment capacity deficiencies. 6.2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area intersections for EAP traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.4). Additional intersections (beyond the eight that satisfy signal warrants for Existing or E+P conditions) that are projected to satisfy traffic signal warrants for EAP conditions are:  Madison Street at Avenue 58  Madison Street at Main Access  Monroe Street at Avenue 58  Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 12112d1111219.712.1AB11.919.9B C 2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 12d12000010110.011.4AB10.011.4AB 3Madison St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 22112012d12141.4 >80 E F 57.7 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 22112012d12135.636.1DD36.938.2DD 4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12130.231.3C C31.032.2C C 5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112131.032.1C C31.332.4C C 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS0.510.522112011118.772.4 C F 22.2 >80 C F ‐ With Improvements TS 0.510.5221120111>24.4 25.0 C C 24.7 25.5 C C 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 ‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 18.5 36.7 C E 21.9 40.4 C E ‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 7.8 8.6 A A 8.3 9.5 A A 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.518.014.0AB10.614.4B B 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 13123112111146.650.4DD46.850.4DD 10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.500118.911.0AB9.511.9AB 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 1101110.50.5101!09.510.9AB10.012.1B B 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 9.8 20.1 A C 11.2 39.8 B E ‐ With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 22.1 23.0 C C 24.4 24.5 C C 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 11012d11101!010.615.4B C11.518.8B C 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!00.50.5111001!050.7 70.1 F F 66.1 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 01!00.50.5111001!025.425.9C C25.425.9C C 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!012011112d39.4 >80 E F 50.4 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 01!012011112d12.615.4B B12.916.1B B 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>17.121.8B C17.221.8B C 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.4 11.3 A B 8.8 12.4 A B 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 08.98.9AA 19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 1 200201 0 1 0 0 0 14.8 19.2 B C 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!00000101*2 0 9.3 10.0 A B 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 000010020 8.69.2AA 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 0 0 0 9.3 10.6 A B 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐3 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement * = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection TABLE 6‐3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2Northbound Southbound Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 #Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes1 EA (2026) Without Project EA (2026) With Project Eastbound Westbound 77 ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio ADT 3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 2,900 0.14 3,500 0.17 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 3,700 0.13 5,600 0.20 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 3,900 0.28 4,700 0.34 Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 10,700 0.25 13,700 0.32 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 6,000 0.29 7,300 0.35 Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 31,950 5 6,000 0.19 7,100 0.22 R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐4 Avenue 58 5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity. 1 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017) 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity. TABLE 6‐4: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Without Project With Project Capacity2 Through Travel Lanes1 Roadway DesignationSegmentRoadway 78 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 72 6.3 EAPC PHASE 1 (2021) CONDITIONS EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) ADT, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 6‐7 through 6‐9, respectively. 6.3.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with those described in Section 5.1.4 EAPC (2021) Conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6‐5, which indicates that the following four study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC conditions:  Madison Street at Avenue 54  Jefferson Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 52 EAPC analysis results in a cumulatively impacted intersection for Jefferson Street at Avenue 52. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.5 of this TIA. Table 6‐5 also documents conditions with improvements to attain acceptable LOS. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. 6.3.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are typically used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 6‐6 provides a summary of the EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds identified previously in Table 3‐4. As shown on Table 6‐6, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS under EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions. 6.3.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area intersections for EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.6). Three additional intersections are projected to satisfy traffic signal warrants beyond the four that satisfy signal warrants for E+P conditions:  Madison Street at Avenue 58  Monroe Street at Avenue 58  Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard 80 81 82 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 12112d11112110.914.2B B11.415.6B C 2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 12d1200001018.810.2AB8.910.2AB 3Madison St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 22112012d12121.347.6 C E 22.6 53.0 C F ‐ With Improvements TS 22112012d12131.431.6C C31.531.7C C 4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12130.230.0C C30.530.2C C 5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112129.931.3C C30.031.3C C 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS0.510.522112011118.849.7 C E 19.3 52.1 C F ‐ With Improvements TS 0.510.522112011136.139.9DD36.240.3DD 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 ‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>>42.8 78.7 E F 44.3 >80 E F ‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 10.2 12.8 B B 10.3 13.0 B B 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.519.334.4AC9.434.4AC 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 13123112111152.450.6DD52.550.7DD 10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.500118.810.6AB8.910.8AB 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 1101110.50.5101!010.412.0B B10.512.3B B 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 10.8 23.8 B C 11.0 26.8 B D 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 11012d11101!011.113.8B B11.314.1B B 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!00.50.5111001!031.135.7 D E 33.0 35.9 D E ‐ With Improvements TS 01!00.50.5111001!023.523.0C C23.723.2C C 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!012011112d50.3 >80 F F 53.1 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 01!012011112d13.014.7B B13.014.7B B 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>16.320.4B C16.320.4B C 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.1 9.8 A A 8.1 9.8 A A 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 08.68.6AA 19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 1 200201 0 1 0 0 0 11.2 12.6 B B 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!00000101*2 0 9.9 10.6 A B 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 000010020 9.39.8AA 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 000 9.09.7AA 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐5 Eastbound Westbound TABLE 6‐5: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 1 (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2Northbound Southbound L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement * = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane Future Intersection Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 #Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes1 Without Project Future Intersection Future Intersection With Project Future Intersection Future Intersection 83 ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio ADT 3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 4,700 0.22 5,100 0.24 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 4,800 0.17 5,300 0.19 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 2,700 0.19 2,900 0.21 Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 11,200 0.26 12,100 0.28 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 4,700 0.22 5,100 0.24 Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 31,950 5 6,600 0.21 6,900 0.22 R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐6 Avenue 58 5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity. 1 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017) 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity. TABLE 6‐6: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 1 (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes1 Capacity2 Without Project With Project 84 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 78 6.4 EAPC PHASE 2 (2023) CONDITIONS EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) ADT, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 6‐10 through 6‐12, respectively. 6.4.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with those described in Section 5.1.5 EAPC (2023) Conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6‐7, which indicates that the following five study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC Phase 2 conditions:  Madison Street at Avenue 54  Jefferson Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 58  Monroe Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 52 EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively impacted intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 52). The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.5 of this TIA. Table 6‐7 also documents conditions with improvements to attain acceptable LOS. Similar to EAPC (2021) conditions, Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. 6.4.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are typically used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 6‐8 provides a summary of the EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds identified previously in Table 3‐4. As shown on Table 6‐8, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS under EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) traffic conditions. 6.4.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area intersections for EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.6). One additional intersection (Monroe Street at Avenue 60) is projected to satisfy traffic signal warrants beyond the seven that satisfy signal warrants for EAPC (2021) conditions. 86 87 88 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 12112d11112111.415.9B C12.018.2B C 2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 12d1200001019.010.4AB9.210.4AB 3Madison St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 22112012d12133.9>80 D F 36.9 >80 E F ‐ With Improvements TS 22112012d12134.538.5CD34.838.8CD 4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12130.830.8C C31.031.1C C 5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112130.732.1C C30.832.1C C 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS0.510.522112011124.179.4 C F 25.2 >80 D F ‐ With Improvements TS 0.510.522112011142.741.6DD43.042.3DD 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 ‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>>59.8 >80 F F 61.7 >80 F F ‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 11.7 16.6 B C 11.8 16.9 B C 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.5115.634.8B C15.634.8B C 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 13123112111152.353.3DD52.453.4DD 10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.500119.011.2AB9.211.7AB 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 1101110.50.5101!013.018.0B C13.319.1B C 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 15.7 >80 C F 16.4 >80 C F ‐ With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 17.3 21.7 B C 18.1 22.9 B C 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 11012d11101!015.627.7CD16.229.1CD 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!00.50.5111001!0>80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 01!00.50.5111001!024.424.0C C24.524.0C C 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!012011112d>80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 01!012011112d13.915.5B B13.915.5B B 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>16.621.5B C16.621.5B C 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.5 11.3 A B 8.6 11.5 A B 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 08.68.6AA 19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 1 200201 0 1 0 0 0 11.5 13.5 B B 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!00000101*2 0 10.1 10.9 B B 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 000010020 9.39.9AA 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 000 9.19.9AA 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐7 TABLE 6‐7: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 2 (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2Northbound Southbound #Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes1 Without Project With Project Eastbound Westbound Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement * = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane 89 ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio ADT 3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 5,100 0.24 5,600 0.27 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 5,200 0.19 5,800 0.21 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 3,500 0.25 3,800 0.27 Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 12,300 0.29 13,300 0.31 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 5,500 0.26 5,900 0.28 Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 31,950 5 9,100 0.28 9,300 0.29 R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐8 Avenue 58 5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity. 1 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017) 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity. TABLE 6‐8: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 2 (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes1 Capacity2 Without Project With Project 90 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 84 6.5 EAPC PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) CONDITIONS EAPC Project Buildout (2026) ADT, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 6‐13 through 6‐15, respectively. 6.5.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under EAPC Project Buildout (2026) traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with those described in Section 5.1.6 EAPC (2026) Conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6‐9, which indicates that the following eight study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC Project Buildout conditions:  Madison Street at Avenue 58  Madison Street at Avenue 54  Jefferson Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 60  Monroe Street at Avenue 58  Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard  Monroe Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 52 In addition, for Jefferson Street at Avenue 50, a second westbound through lane is necessary to maintain acceptable level of service. EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively impacted intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 52). The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC Project Buildout traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.5 of this TIA. Table 6‐8 also documents conditions with improvements to attain acceptable LOS. Similar to EAPC (2021) and EAPC (2023) conditions, Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. 6.5.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are typically used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 6‐10 provides a summary of the EAPC Project Buildout (2026) traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds identified previously in Table 3‐4. As shown on Table 6‐9, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS under EAPC Project Buildout (2026) traffic conditions. 92 93 94 Page 1 of 2 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1Madison St. / Avenue 58 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 12112d11112112.7 20.8 B C 17.3 57.9 C F ‐ With Improvements TS 12112d11112127.4 32.0 C C 27.4 32.1 C C 2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 12d1200001019.6 10.9 A B 9.6 10.9 A B 3Madison St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 22112012d12179.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 22112012d12141.2 43.6 D D 41.6 50.3 D D 4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12131.6 32.3 C C 32.2 33.1 C C 5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112131.9 33.4 C C 32.2 33.6 C C 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 0.510.522112011140.6 >80 E F 54.2 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 0.510.5221120111>22.7 22.5 C C 22.9 22.6 C C 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 ‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>>>80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F ‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 15.1 28.3 C D 16.8 34.3 C D 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.5119.4 35.4 B D 19.5 35.8 B D 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 ‐ Without Improvements TS 13123112111152.4 58.8 D E 53.0 60.3 D E ‐ With Improvements TS 13123112112 1 51.4 51.0 D D 51.8 51.6 D D 10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.500119.4 12.8 A B 10.2 14.8 B B 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 1101110.50.5101!025.9 76.4 D F 30.9 >80 D F ‐ With Improvements TS 1101110.50.5101!033.3 34.9 C C 34.4 37.7 C D 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 52.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 1 101 101 101 1023.2 33.3 C C 25.9 38.1 C D 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. ‐ Without Improvements AWS 11012d11101!047.3 >80 E F 70.4 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 11012d11101!024.0 24.9 C C 24.6 25.8 C C 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!00.50.5111001!0>80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 1 101 101101 1034.7 37.0 C D 35.0 37.7 C D 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!012011112d>80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 01!012011112d33.7 41.2 C D 34.1 44.1 C D 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>17.7 25.0 B C 17.9 25.8 B C 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 01!001!001!001!0 9.5 16.9 A C 9.9 21.5 A C Traffic Control3Intersection TABLE 6‐9: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 3 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 Without Project With Project # Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 Intersection Approach Lanes1 95 Page 2 of 2 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Traffic Control3Intersection TABLE 6‐9: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 3 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 Without Project With Project # Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 Intersection Approach Lanes1 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 0 8.9 8.9 A A 19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 1 200201 0 1 000 17.4 24.3 C C 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!00000101*20 10.2 11.1 B B 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 000010020 9.4 10.0 A B 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 000 9.6 11.3 A B 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐9 Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection Future Intersection L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement * = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane 96 ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio ADT 3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 5,700 0.27 6,300 0.30 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 5,900 0.21 7,800 0.28 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 4,900 0.35 5,700 0.41 Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 14,300 0.34 17,400 0.41 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 6,900 0.33 8,200 0.39 Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 31,950 5 12,100 0.38 13,100 0.41 R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐10 Avenue 58 5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity. 1 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017) 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity. TABLE 6‐10: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 3 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes1 Capacity2 Without Project With Project 97 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 91 6.5.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area intersections for EAPC Project Buildout (2026) traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.6). Two additional intersections (Jackson Street at Avenue 58 and Madison Street at Main Access) are projected to satisfy traffic signal warrants beyond the eight that satisfy signal warrants for EAPC (2023) conditions. 6.5.4 QUEUING ANALYSIS A queuing analysis was performed for With Project Conditions to assess the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the Project entries. Queuing analysis findings are presented in Table 6‐11 for EAPC (2026) traffic conditions. Queueing analysis worksheets for EAPC (2026) are also provided in Appendix 6.5. AM PM Peak Hour Volume AM 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 SBL/SBR 72 45 AM 72 >300 56 49 19 Madison St. / Main Access NBL 19 45 PM 45 150 22 45 EBL 207 150 AM 207 150 101 115 EBR 15 13 AM 15 >150 37 36 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 NBL/NBR 7 35 PM 35 >50 25 43 WBL 16 27 PM 27 >50 15 21 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 NBR 3 15 PM 15 >50 20 44 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 EBR 6 29 PM 29 >50 28 40 R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]‐ NOT USED ‐‐ TABLE 6‐11: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) CONDITIONS ID Intersection Turning Movement Lane EAPC (2026)Storage Length2 (ft.) 95th Percentile1 Queue Length PM 1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic. 2 Existing Storage Length = 100 ; Proposed Storage Length = 100 99 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 93 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 94 7 YEAR 2040 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This section discusses the results of the General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) HCM intersection analysis and roadway segment capacity analysis. This analysis will determine if the City of La Quinta Circulation Element is adequate to accommodate future traffic at the target LOS, or if additional mitigation is necessary. This section provides recommended intersection and segment lanes to provide acceptable levels of service for three roadway network scenarios. 7.1 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) ADT, weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 7‐1 through 7‐3, respectively. 7.1.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions are consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan buildout (2035) intersection configurations (May 2012). LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 7‐1. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 7.1 of this TIA. All intersections are anticipated to experience acceptable operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions with improvements. 7.1.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are typically used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 7‐2 provides a summary of the General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds identified previously in Table 3‐4. As shown on Table 7‐2, The study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions. However, one roadway segment along Madison Street, between Avenue 54 and Airport Boulevard (as shown on Exhibit 7‐1) appears to exceed the theoretical daily segment LOS thresholds. As mentioned previously in Section 3.11, where the peak hour roadway segment analysis indicates a deficiency (unacceptable LOS), a review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis is undertaken. Further review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis indicates that the recommended improvements at adjacent study area intersections provide acceptable level of service. Therefore, roadway segment widening is not anticipated. 102 103 104 105 106 107 LTRLTRLTRLTRAMPMAMPM 1Madison St. / Avenue 58 ‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 12112d12 0121>40.1 63.2 D E ‐ With Modified GPCE Improvements TS 12112d2 1 0121>34.5 45.5 C D 2Madison St. / Airport Blvd.TS 12d12000010123.228.6 C C 3Madison St. / Avenue 54 TS 221120121>>121>42.9 49.0 D D 4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 221221 1 2 d 1 2 1 38.8 52.0 D D 5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 2 3 1221121121>36.7 53.2 D D 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 221111112>24.0 43.5 C D 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 524 RDB 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1>> 5.8 8.3 A A 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 6.3 21.2 A C 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 1312312 212 2 1 41.5 52.8 D D 10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 TS 0 1!0 2 1 1>2 201 2 1 50.9 48.0 D D 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 ‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 1 2 012 112 1 1 1 1>45.1 98.8 D F ‐ With Added GPCE Improvements TS 1 2 012 112 1>1 2 1>36.7 50.3 D D 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 ‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 47.8 72.0 D E ‐ With Added GPCE Improvements TS 2 2 1>2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 38.0 48.6 D D 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.TS 1 2 012d12 0 1 2 1>33.3 44.1 C D 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 31.5 52.5 C D 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2012 1121 39.0 52.7 D D 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 2 2 1 2 2012 112 1> 34.5 53.3 C D 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 29.7 36.7 C D 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 19 Madison St. / Main Access 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout 4 Since roundabout analysis in Synchro is limited to a maximum of 2 lanes per approach, traffix has been utilized at this location (similar to the City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout TIA worksheets). R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]7‐1 TABLE 7‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS #Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Does Not Exist Intersection Does Not Exist Intersection Does Not Exist Intersection Does Not Exist Intersection Does Not Exist L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement 1 = Improvement per City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2012) 108 Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes1 ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio West of Madison Street Secondary 4 28,000 11,800 0.42 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 12,100 0.43 West of Jackson Street Secondary 4 28,000 18,200 0.65 Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 30,900 0.73 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 22,700 0.81 Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 24,900 0.58 R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]7‐2 Avenue 58 TABLE 7‐2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS Capacity2 1 Existing Number of Through lanes; 1 = City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017) 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 109 LTRLTRLTRLTRAMPMAMPM 1Madison St. / Avenue 58 ‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 12112d12 0121>41.5 70.3 D E ‐ With Modified GPCE Improvements TS 12112d2 1 0121>35.1 53.0 D D 2Madison St. / Airport Blvd.TS 12d12000010123.729.7 C C 3Madison St. / Avenue 54 TS 221120121>>121>44.2 53.3 D D 4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 221221 1 2 d 1 2 1 39.5 53.8 D D 5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 2 3 1221121121>37.6 54.8 D D 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 221111112>24.2 48.4 C D 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 524 RDB 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1>> 5.9 9.1 A A 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 6.4 21.4 A C 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 1312312 212 2 1 42.2 54.6 D D 10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 TS 0 1!0 2 1 1>2 201 2 1 49.6 53.1 D D 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 ‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 1 2 012 112 1 1 1 1>46.1 103.9 D F ‐ With Added GPCE Improvements TS 1 2 012 112 1>1 2 1>37.2 53.0 D D 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 ‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 50.1 75.9 D E ‐ With Added GPCE Improvements TS 2 2 1>2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 39.5 52.0 D D 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.TS 1 2 012d12 0 1 2 1>37.8 45.4 D D 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 31.6 54.5 C D 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2012 1121 39.0 54.3 D D 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 2 2 1 2 2012 112 1> 34.1 54.5 C D 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 29.7 38.0 C D 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 0 34.2 34.8 D D 19 Madison St. / Main Access ‐ With Cross‐Street Stop Control CSS 1 200201 0 1 000113.2 91.7 F F ‐ With Traffic Signal TS 1 200201 0 1 0007.69.0 A A 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!000002 0 1*2 0 12.9 14.5 B B 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 00002 0 0 2 0 10.2 10.4 B B 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 0 0 0 13.6 14.4 B B 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout 4 Since roundabout analysis in Synchro is limited to a maximum of 2 lanes per approach, traffix has been utilized at this location (similar to the City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout TIA worksheets). R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]7‐3 TABLE 7‐3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS #Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 * = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement 1 = Improvement per City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2012) Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 110 Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes1 ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio West of Madison Street Secondary 4 28,000 12,500 0.45 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 14,000 0.50 West of Jackson Street Secondary 4 28,000 19,000 0.68 Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 34,000 0.80 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 24,000 0.86 Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 26,000 0.61 R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]7‐4 Avenue 58 TABLE 7‐4: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Capacity2 1 Existing Number of Through lanes; 1 = City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017) 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 111 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 105 7.1.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area intersections for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions (see Appendix 7.2). One additional study area intersections are anticipated to warrant a traffic signal beyond those warranted for EAPC (2026) conditions (Madison at Avenue 60). 7.2 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) ADT, weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 7‐1 through 7‐3, respectively. 7.2.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions are consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan buildout (2035) intersection configurations (May 2012). LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 7‐3. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 7.3 of this TIA. All intersections are anticipated to experience acceptable operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions with improvements. 7.2.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are typically used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 7‐4 provides a summary of the General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) with project traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds identified previously in Table 3‐4. As shown on Table 7‐4, the study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions. 7.2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area intersections for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions (see Appendix 7.4). One additional study area intersections are anticipated to warrant a traffic signal beyond those warranted for General plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions (Madison Street at Main Access). Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 106 7.2.4 QUEUING ANALYSIS A queuing analysis was performed for With Project Conditions to assess the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the Project entries. Queuing analysis findings are presented in Table 7‐5 for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) With Project traffic conditions. Queueing analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix 7.3. AM PM Peak Hour Volume AM 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 SBL/SBR 73 46 AM 73 >300 97 232 19 Madison St. / Main Access NBL 19 45 PM 45 150 43 76 EBL 207 150 AM 207 150 141 130 EBR 15 13 AM 15 >150 93 41 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 NBL/NBR 7 35 PM 35 >50 22 52 WBL 16 27 PM 27 >50 23 38 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 NBR 3 15 PM 15 >50 18 52 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 EBR 6 29 PM 29 >50 32 57 R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]‐ NOT USED ‐‐ 2 Existing Storage Length = 100 ; Proposed Storage Length = 100 TABLE 7‐5: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ID Intersection Turning Movement Lane General Plan Buildout (2040) With Project Storage Length2 (ft.) 95th Percentile1 Queue Length PM 1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic. 114 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 108 8 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). 8.1 WEEKEND TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CONDITIONS The weekend special event intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the weekend peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected on February 22, 2020. Based on discussions with City staff, the Saturday peak hour is selected from this period between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. A sample comparison of the PM weekday data and weekend counts focuses on key locations (4 intersections), as listed in Table 8‐1. The raw manual Saturday peak period turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1. TABLE 8‐1: WEEKEND INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS ID Intersection Location ID Intersection Location 1 Madison Street at Avenue 58 11 Monroe Street at Avenue 58 5 Madison Street at Avenue 50 13 Monroe Street at Avenue 54 Volume changes at these locations are extrapolated to the remaining study area locations as identified in the TIA. The average peak hour intersection change between weekday pm peak hour and weekend peak hour count data at selected study area and nearby intersections is a decrease of approximately 17.20% (see Table 8‐2). The ‐17.20% rate is applied to the study area intersections with weekday counts to reflect weekend conditions. Existing weekend peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibit 8‐1. 8.2 WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT PROJECT LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION Trip generation rates used to estimate weekend Project traffic and a summary of the Project’s trip generation are shown in Table 8‐3. The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide weekend trip generation rates for special events at a wave basin facility since the use is very specific. As such, vehicle trips are calculated based on estimated number of guests anticipated for these special events and a vehicle occupancy of 2.4. Table 8‐3 shows the Weekend Project trip generation during a special event based on 2,500 guests per day at the Wave Basin facility and approximately 25% of the guests arriving or departing during the arrival or departure peak hours. Weekend rates for other on‐site land uses represent typical Saturday rates. As shown on Table 8‐3, 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. N/S1 E/W2 TOTAL N/S 1 E/W2 TOTAL 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 432 169 601 365 224 589 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 577 798 1,375 570 732 1,302 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 285 192 477 160 109 269 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 418 403 821 303 248 551 1,712 1,562 3,274 1,398 1,313 2,711 ‐18.34%‐15.94%‐17.20% 1 Northbound and Southbound Approach Volumes 2 Eastbound and Westbound Approach Volumes R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]8‐2 Summary_(Existing Sat Comp) Weekday PM Peak Hour Saturday Mid‐Day Peak Hour TOTAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS (to be applied to the remaining study intersections with Weekday PM volumes to reflect Saturday mid‐ day conditions) TABLE 8‐2: EXISTING 2019 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR & 2020 SATURDAY MID‐DAY PEAK HOUR COMPARISON ID Intersection Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 116 117 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 Hotel7 (with bar, restaurant, kitchen, rooftop bar, pool bar & grill, and spa. Back of house resort operations included) 3105 0.40 0.32 0.72 Shopping Center 820 2.34 2.16 4.50 Wave Basin Facility8 (Back of house wave operations included)‐4 Wave Village (Studio/Retail)9 (with shape studio, surf shop, board room, surf lounge/living room, surf classroom, fitness pavilion, high performance center, & beach club) 861 2.15 2.06 4.21 The Farm (Recreational Area/Clubhouse)10 (with Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms) 495 0.54 0.53 1.07 In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached 210 496 DU 248 213 461 248 213 461 4,732 Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)2206 104 DU 40 33 73 40 33 73 847 Internal to Retail/Resort (29) (52) (81) (65) (36) (101) (777) 259 194 453 223 210 433 4,802 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) (501) 80 62 142 70 69 139 1,547 Resort Hotel 3105 150 RM 60 48 108 60 48 108 1,229 Internal to Residential/Retail (28) (37) (65) (33) (27) (60) (720) 32 11 43 27 21 48 509 Wave Basin Facility ‐4 2,500 Guests 260 14 274 14 260 274 2,084 Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort (42) (4) (46) (4) (46) (50) (547) 218 10 228 10 214 224 1,537 Wave Village 861 15 TSF 32 31 63 31 32 63 871 Internal to Residential/Resort (14) (15) (29) (15) (14) (29) (348) 18 16 34 16 18 34 523 The Farm 495 16 TSF 9 8 17 8 9 17 146 Internal to Residential/Resort (7) (4) (11) (4) (7) (11) (132) The Farm External Trips 24642614 789 477 1,266 541 725 1,266 12,676 Internal Capture Subtotal (145) (145) (290) (156) (156) (312) (3,025) Pass‐By (Shopping Center)(35) (35) (70) (35) (35) (70) (719) 609 297 906 350 534 884 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. 7 Hotel trip rates account for 23.5 tsf of ancillary facilities which include bar, restaurant, kitchen, rooftop bar, pool bar & grill, spa, and back of house resort operations. 8 The Wave Basin Facility trip rates account for pool area and 1.5 tsf of back of house wave operations. 9 Wave Village trip rates account for 15 tsf of ancillary facilities which include shape studio, surf shop, board room, surf lounge/living room, surf classroom, fitness pavilion, high performance center, & beach club. 10 The Farm trip rates account for 16 tsf of ancillary facilities which include Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms. 11 The 1 tsf back of house guardhouse use is accounted for in the Project rates. C:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]Ph3‐SE_20201015 TABLE 8‐3: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ‐ WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT Trip Generation Rates1,11 DU 9.54 DU 8.14 RM 8.19 Land Use ITE LU Code Units 2 Saturday Mid‐Day Peak Hour Weekend Daily TSF 46.12 Guests See Below Trip Generation Results 58.09 9.10 TSF TSF Residential External Trips Shopping Center External Trips Resort Hotel External Trips Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity 2 Arrival Peak Hour Departure Peak Hour Weekend Daily Wave Basin Facility 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 = Room; TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 Source: Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017). Wave Village External Trips 118 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 112 The trip distribution patterns for the special event components of the proposed Project is consistent with the typical weekday operation. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project (Special Event) weekend traffic volumes are shown on Exhibits 8‐2 through 8‐4. 8.3 WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT ANALYSIS EAPC Project Buildout (2026), weekend special event arrival and departure peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibits 8‐5 and 8‐6, respectively. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 8‐4, which indicates that the following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS conditions:  Madison Street at Avenue 58  Madison Street at Avenue 54  Jefferson Street at Avenue 54  Jefferson Street at Avenue 52  Monroe Street at Avenue 60  Monroe Street at Avenue 58  Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard  Monroe Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 52 Improvement recommendations identified in Tables 8‐4 are consistent with the improvements for EAPC Phase 3 weekday typical operations. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC Project Buildout (2026) Weekend Special Event traffic conditions are included in Appendix 8.1 of this TIA. A queuing analysis was performed for With Project Weekend Special Event Conditions to assess the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the Project entries. Queuing analysis findings are presented in Table 8‐5 for EAPC (2026) Weekend Special Event traffic conditions. Queueing analysis worksheets for EAPC (2026) are also provided in Appendix 8.1. 8.4 SPECIAL EVENT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Special events of up to 2,500 guests are anticipated to generate approximately 2,084 daily trips to and from the wave basin facility alone, of which 1,604 are from outside the Project residential, retail, and resort hotel. During the arrival and departure peak hours, approximately 624 guests are anticipated to arrive or depart per hour, with an average of 2.4 persons per vehicle. 120 121 122 123 124 Page 1 of 2 LTRLTRLTRLTRArrival Departure Arrival Departure 1Madison St. / Avenue 58 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 12112d11112141.6 37.8 E E ‐ With Improvements TS 12112d11112129.9 30.9 C C 2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 12d12000010110.5 10.8 B B 3Madison St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 22112012d12145.9 39.3 E E ‐ With Improvements TS 22112012d12142.6 41.4 D D 4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12132.3 32.0 C C 5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112132.5 32.5 C C 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 0.510.5221120111 >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 0.510.5221120111>21.9 21.8 C C 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 ‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>>>80 >80 F F ‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 1.5 1>>0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>>13.5 13.4 B B 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.5129.0 28.9 C C 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 ‐ Without Improvements TS 13123112111148.1 48.1 D D ‐ With Improvements TS 13123112112 1 47.3 47.3 D D 10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.5001112.7 13.9 B B 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 1101110.50.5101!047.0 45.2 E E ‐ With Improvements TS 1101110.50.5101!035.3 35.4 D D 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 1 101 101 101 1030.2 30.4 C C 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. ‐ Without Improvements AWS 11012d11101!066.3 66.4 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 11012d11101!022.9 22.8 C C 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!00.50.5111001!0 >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 1 101 101101 1032.6 32.6 C C 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 ‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!012011112d >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 01!012011112d34.3 34.3 C C 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>20.7 20.7 C C 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 01!001!001!001!0 14.6 14.6 B B TABLE 8‐4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound #Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes1 With Project Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 125 Page 2 of 2 LTRLTRLTRLTRArrival Departure Arrival Departure TABLE 8‐4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound #Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes1 With Project Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 0 8.9 8.9 A A 19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 1 200201 0 1 00030.9 32.2 D D 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!00000101*2012.6 12.1 B B 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 000010020 9.9 10.3 A B 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 00011.0 11.1 B B 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]SAT_EAPC * = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement 126 AM PM Peak Hour Volume Arrival 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 SBL/SBR 52 56 PM 56 >300 44 53 19 Madison St. / Main Access NBL 110 53 AM 110 150 89 61 EBL 175 229 PM 229 150 107 137 EBR 15 27 PM 27 >150 41 42 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 NBL/NBR 29 94 PM 94 >50 20 69 WBL 106 39 AM 106 >50 44 37 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 NBR 18 51 PM 51 >50 52 44 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 EBR 34 78 PM 78 >50 43 42 R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]‐ NOT USED ‐‐ Departure 1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic. 2 Existing Storage Length = 100 ; Proposed Storage Length = 100 TABLE 8‐5: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS ID Intersection Turning Movement Lane EAPC (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT Storage Length2 (ft.) 95th Percentile1 Queue Length 127 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 121 Approximately 260 total inbound trips to the wave basin facility alone are anticipated during the arrival peak hour (of which 214 are from outside the Project residential, retail, and resort hotel), with a similar quantity occurring in the outbound direction during the departure peak hour. These special event attendee vehicles are anticipated to access the wave basin facility via the Project Main Entry. For large special event venues, traffic control typically includes special event flaggers, law enforcement personnel, online or transmitted event information (suggested routes, parking, etc.), and portable changeable message signs (CMS). In the case studied here, with appropriate wayfinding signage, these special event traffic control measures are not currently anticipated to be necessary. However, if at a later date these measures are determined to be desirable / necessary, the facility management should coordinate with the City staff to develop a traffic management plan prior to the Special Event. Exhibit 8‐7 shows a potential generalized schedule of special event operation planning. EXHIBIT 8‐7: EVENT OPERATIONS PLANNING SCHEDULE Source: Managing Travel for Planned Special Events Handbook: Executive Summary (June 2007) prepared by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 122 9 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 PROJECT ACCESS The Coral Mountain Specific Plan Project is proposed to be served by the Project access locations 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) The separation between Project driveways along Avenue 58 and Madison Street are over 250 feet and separation between Avenue 58 and the Project’s main access point (future signalized location) is over 600 feet. The location of each Project access points meets City of La Quinta intersection spacing standards. Exhibit 9‐1 shows Project access and site‐adjacent improvements to be constructed in conjunction with development. For Project Phase 1 conditions, the following improvements are recommended: Avenue 58 should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along the commercial portion of the Project. Madison Street should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along the commercial portion of the Project. Avenue 60 should be constructed as a 2‐lane roadway along the Project boundary. For Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 (intersection 20), provide northbound cross‐street stop control. Construct south leg with one shared northbound left‐right turn lane. Accommodate westbound left turn lane within two‐way left turn lane (TWLTL) striping. Northbound cross‐street stop control should be provided for Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 (intersection 21). Construct south leg with one right turn outbound lane. Left turns should not be accommodated at this intersection. For Madison Street & Project Access 3 (intersection 22), provide eastbound cross‐street stop control. Construct west leg with one right turn outbound lane. Left turns should not be accommodated at this intersection. Eastbound cross‐street stop control should be provided for Madison Street & Main Access (intersection 19). Construct west leg with one left turn outbound and one right turn outbound lane. Construct a northbound left turn inbound lane with a minimum turn bay length of 150’. 130 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 124 For South Access & Avenue 60 (intersection 18), provide southbound cross‐street stop control. Construct north leg with one shared left‐right turn outbound lane. Construct west leg with one shared left‐through lane. Construct east leg with one shared through‐right lane. For Project Phase 2 conditions, the same improvements are recommended as for Project Phase 1 (see above). For Project Buildout (Phase 3) conditions, the following improvements are recommended: Avenue 58 should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along the residential / remaining portion of the Project. Madison Street should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along the residential / remaining portion of the Project. Construct traffic signal for the intersection of Madison Street & Main Access when warranted. 9.2 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS Existing intersection operations were presented in Section 3.10 of this TIA. All of the 17 existing study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. The following 4 unsignalized study area intersections currently warrant a traffic signal:  Madison Street at Avenue 54  Jefferson Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 54  Monroe Street at Avenue 52 9.2.1 E+P CONDITIONS For Existing + Project conditions, the intersection analysis results were previously presented on Table 6‐1, which indicates that two study area intersections require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under E+P conditions: Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (#6) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#15) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control 9.2.2 EAP CONDITIONS EAP intersection analysis results were previously presented on Table 6‐3, which indicates that the following five study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAP conditions: Madison Street at Avenue 54 (#3) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (#6) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (#11) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (#13) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#14) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 125 EAP analysis results indicates that the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 experiences deficient operations under cumulative “without project” conditions. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. 9.2.3 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS (2021) CONDITIONS EAPC intersection analysis results were previously presented on Table 6‐5, which indicates that the following four study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC Phase 1 conditions: Madison Street at Avenue 54 (#3) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (#6) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (#13) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#14) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control EAPC analysis results in a cumulatively impacted intersection for Jefferson Street at Avenue 52. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate. 9.2.4 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS (2023) CONDITIONS EAPC intersection analysis results were previously presented on Table 6‐7, which indicates that the following five study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC Phase 2 conditions: Madison Street at Avenue 54 (#3) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (#6) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (#12) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (#13) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#14) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively impacted intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 52). Similar to EAPC Phase 1 conditions, Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 126 9.2.5 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS (2026) CONDITIONS EAPC intersection analysis results were previously presented on Table 6‐9, which indicates that the following eight study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC conditions: Madison Street at Avenue 58 (#1) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Madison Street at Avenue 54 (#3) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (#6) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 60 (#11) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (#12) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard (#13) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (#14) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#15) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control In addition, for Jefferson Street at Avenue 50, a second westbound through lane is necessary to maintain acceptable level of service. EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively impacted intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 52). Similar to EAPC Phase 1 and Phase 2 conditions, Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate. The main Project driveway is located at on Madison Street south of Avenue 58. It is a full access location, serving left and right turns to and from Madison Street with traffic signal control. With the Project, the northbound left turn lane serving the main Project driveway is recommended to provide 150 feet of vehicle queuing. 9.2.6 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) CONDITIONS All intersections are anticipated to experience acceptable operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040), based upon improvements indicated in the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis. The main Project driveway is located at on Madison Street south of Avenue 58. It is a full access location, serving left and right turns to and from Madison Street with traffic signal control. With the Project, the northbound left turn lane serving the main Project driveway is recommended to provide 150 feet of vehicle queuing. 9.3 FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION Project mitigation may include a combination of fee payments to established programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future improvements or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 127 development should be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the City’s discretion). Table 9‐1 shows the project fair share percentages at cumulatively impacted intersections and CIP funded locations (for EAPC and 2040 conditions). However, these percentages are an approximation only as they are intended only for discussion purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or mitigation. In addition, a summary of study area improvements needed to address intersection operational deficiencies and corresponding funding sources for near‐term and General Plan Buildout conditions are summarized in Table 9‐2. 9.4 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED Project VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) has been evaluated and provided in a separate letter “Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis”, dated October 27, 2020. Phase 1 (2021) Phase 2 (2023) Phase 3 Buildout (2026) Phase 1 (2021) Phase 2 (2023) Phase 3 (2026) EAPC Phase 1 (2021)1 EAPC Phase 2 (2023)2 EAPC Phase 3 (2026)3 2040 With Project4 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 •AM Peak Hour 339 1,455 3,235 23% 10% •PM Peak Hour 464 2,034 4,690 23% 10% 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 •AM Peak Hour 36 38 182 1,469 1,679 2,165 5,224 2% 2% 8% 3% •PM Peak Hour 43 52 240 1,845 2,130 2,769 6,689 2% 2% 9% 4% 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 •AM Peak Hour 98 4,330 2% •PM Peak Hour 129 5,452 2% 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 •AM Peak Hour 58 1,967 4,587 1% •PM Peak Hour 72 2,594 6,410 1% 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 •AM Peak Hour 12 13 61 1,331 1,443 1,669 3,135 1% 1% 4% 2% •PM Peak Hour 15 17 80 1,604 1,749 2,044 3,871 1% 1% 4% 2% 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 •AM Peak Hour 12 12 76 2,792 2,965 3,301 5,035 0.4% 0.4% 2% 2% •PM Peak Hour 13 13 97 3,233 3,462 3,900 6,097 0.4% 0.4% 2% 2% 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 •AM Peak Hour 77 3,213 3,344 3,622 4,954 2% 2% •PM Peak Hour 96 3,853 4,054 4,440 6,161 2% 2% 10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 •AM Peak Hour 125 2,875 4% •PM Peak Hour 169 3,853 4% 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 •AM Peak Hour 82 685 941 1,334 3,094 6% 3% •PM Peak Hour 111 840 1,194 1,733 4,863 6% 2% 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 •AM Peak Hour 29 141 695 919 1,320 3,311 3% 11% 4% •PM Peak Hour 37 185 1,007 1,334 1,914 4,733 3% 10% 4% 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. •AM Peak Hour 76 640 854 1,218 3,200 6% 2% •PM Peak Hour 97 864 1,163 1,654 4,442 6% 2% 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 •AM Peak Hour 12 12 76 1,120 1,349 1,738 3,987 1% 1% 4% 2% •PM Peak Hour 13 13 97 1,250 1,566 2,108 5,384 1% 1% 5% 2% 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 •AM Peak Hour 12 12 76 1,589 1,769 2,113 4,174 1% 1% 4% 2% •PM Peak Hour 13 13 97 1,932 2,190 2,673 5,664 1% 1% 4% 2% 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue •AM Peak Hour 9 9 58 1,561 1,734 2,067 4,319 1% 1% 3% 1% •PM Peak Hour 10 9 72 2,137 2,378 2,839 6,011 0% 0% 3% 1% 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue •AM Peak Hour 13 13 61 370 464 670 2,594 4% 3% 9% 2% •PM Peak Hour 13 17 81 559 700 995 3,735 2% 2% 8% 2% 1 Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Phase 1 (2021) Traffic" / "EAPC Phase 1 (2021) Peak Hour Traffic") 2 Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Phase 2 (2023) Traffic" / "EAPC Phase 2 (2023) Peak Hour Traffic") 3 Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Phase 3 Buildout (2026) Traffic" / "EAPC Phase 3 (2026) Peak Hour Traffic") 4 Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Phase 3 Buildout (2026) Traffic" / "2040 With Project Peak Hour Traffic") C:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]9‐1 Fair Share N/A N/A N/A N/A ID Intersection N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TABLE 9‐1: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS Project Only Traffic EAPC Peak Hour Traffic 2040 With Project Peak Hour Traffic Fair Share (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A 135 (Page 1 of 3)IDJurisdiction Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Without Project With ProjectWithout Project With Project1NoneNoneNoneNoneNone• Install TSDIF / CIP2• Same• Same• 2nd EBL, WBR Ovl • Same3• Install TS • Same• Same• Same• Same• SameDIF / CIP • Same• Same• 1 EB free RT • Same• WBR OVL• Same4City of La Quinta/City of IndioNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneDIF / CIP • 1 SBR• Same5NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneDIF / CIP • 3rd NBT• Same• WBR OVL• Same6• Install TS • Same• Same• Same• Same• SameDIF / CIP • Same• Same• WBR OVL • Same• Same, 2nd WBR • Same• 1 NBL, 1 NBR • Same7• 2 lane RDB • Same• Same• Same• Same• SameDIF / CIP • 3 lane RDB• Same• 2nd NBT • Same• Same• Same• Same• Same• Same, 3rd NBT • Same• 2nd SBT • Same• Same• Same• Same• Same• Same, 3rd SBT • Same• 2nd EBT, 3rd EBT • Same• 2nd WBT, 3rd WBT • Same9NoneNoneNoneNone• 2nd WBT • Same• Same, 2nd WBL • Same• 2nd EBL• Same10NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone‐‐• Install TS• Same• 1 Shared NB L/T/R • Same• 2nd SBL, 1 SBT, • Same SBR OVL• 2 EBL• Same• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT • Same11NoneNoneNoneNone• Install TS • Same• Same• Same• 2nd NBT• Same• 2nd SBT• Same• 1 EBL, 2nd EBT, • Same EBR OVL• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT • Same 1 WBR w/ OVLPhase 1 (2021)1Phase 2 (2023)1Jefferson St. / Avenue 54Jefferson St. / Avenue 52City of La Quinta/County of RiversideCity of La Quinta/City of IndioTABLE 9‐2: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS City of La QuintaCity of La QuintaMadison St. / Avenue 54City of La Quinta/City of IndioJefferson St. / Avenue 50Madison St. / Avenue 60Madison St. / Avenue 50Madison St. / Avenue 52Phase 3 (2026)1Madison St. / Avenue 58La Quinta CIPLa Quinta CIPIntersectionFunding Source?2040 Conditions1City of La QuintaCity of La QuintaCity of La QuintaMonroe St. / Avenue 60136 (Page 2 of 3)IDJurisdiction Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Without Project With ProjectWithout Project With ProjectPhase 1 (2021)1Phase 2 (2023)1TABLE 9‐2: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Phase 3 (2026)1IntersectionFunding Source?2040 Conditions112NoneNone• Install TS • Same• Same• SameDIF / CIP • Same• Same• 1 NBL, 1 SBL, • Same• Same• Same• 1 EBL, 1 WBL • Same• Same• Same• 2nd NBL, 2nd NBT, • Same 1 NBR w/ OVL• 2nd SBL, 2nd SBT • Same• 2nd EBT, 2nd EBR • Same• 2nd WBT• Same13NoneNoneNoneNone• Install TS • SameDIF / CIP • Same• Same• 2nd NBT• Same• 2nd EBT• Same• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT, • Same 1 WBR w/ OVL14• Install TS • Same• Same• Same• Same• SameDIF / CIP • Same• Same• 1 NBL, 1 SBL, 1 WBL• Same• Same• Same• 2nd NBT, 1 NBR • Same• 2nd SBT, 1 SBR • Same• 2nd EBL, 2nd EBT, • Same 1 EBR• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT, • Same 1 WBR15• Install TS • Same• Same• Same• Same• SameDIF / CIP • Same• Same• 2 NBL, 1NBT, 1 NBR • Same• 2nd SBL• Same• 2nd EBT• Same• 2nd WBR• Same16NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone‐‐• 2nd NBL, 1 NBR • Same• 2nd SBL• Same• 2nd EBT• Same• 2nd WBT• SameMonroe St. / Avenue 58Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.Monroe St. / Avenue 52Monroe St. / 50th AvenueCity of La Quinta/City of Indio/County of RiversideCity of La Quinta/County of RiversideCity of La Quinta/County of RiversideCity of La Quinta/County of RiversideMonroe St. / Avenue 54City of Indio137 (Page 3 of 3)IDJurisdiction Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Without Project With ProjectWithout Project With ProjectPhase 1 (2021)1Phase 2 (2023)1TABLE 9‐2: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Phase 3 (2026)1IntersectionFunding Source?2040 Conditions117NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone‐‐• Install TS• Same• 1 NBL, 2nd NBT • Same• 1 SBL, 2nd SBT • Same• 1 EBL, 2nd EBT • Same• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT • Same18N/A• Install SB CSS N/A• SameN/A• SameProject N/A• Same• 1 shared SBL/R• Same• Same• Same• 1 shared EBL/T• Same• Same• Same• 1 shared WBT/R• Same• Same• Same19N/A• Install EB CSS N/A• SameN/A• SameProject N/A• Install TS• 1 NBL• Same• Same• Same• 1 EBL & 1 EBR• Same• Same• Same20N/A• Install NB CSS N/A• SameN/A• SameProject N/A• Same• 1 shared NBL/R• Same• Same• Same• 2nd EBT21N/A• Install NB CSS N/A• SameN/A• SameProject N/A• Same• 1 NBR• Same• Same• Same• 2nd EBT1TS = Traffic Signal; RDB = Roundabout; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop Control; OVL = Overlap Phase2The required signal will be installed by the Project, and reimbursement may be provided for all but the Project’s fair share by future developments, or CIP, or DIF.C:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]9‐2 Imp SummaryS. Access / Avenue 60Madison St. / Main AccessJackson St. / 58th AvenueProject Access 1 / Avenue 58Project Access 2 / Avenue 58City of La QuintaCity of La QuintaCity of La QuintaCity of La QuintaCounty of Riverside138 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 132 10 REFERENCES 1. Iteris. City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis. Prepared for City of La Quinta, May 14, 2012. 2. City of La Quinta. Engineering Bulletin #06‐13. s.l. : City of La Quinta, July October 2313, 20152017. 3. City of La Quinta. Engineering Bulletin #10‐01 Intersection Sight Distance Guidelines. City of La Quinta Public Works/Engineering Department, 2010. 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation. 9th 10th Edition. 20122017. 5. Riverside County Transportation Commission. 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program. County of Riverside : RCTC, December 14, 2011. 6. City of La Quinta. City of La Quinta Municipal Code. City of La Quinta. December 1996. 7. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). National Academy of Sciences, 2010. 8. California Department of Transportation. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. December 2002. 9. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). 2014. 10. Southern California Association of Governments. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. April 2016. 11. City of La Quinta. Resolution No. 2012‐12: Fiscal Year 2012/2013 through 2016/2017 Capital Improvement Plan. City of La Quinta, 2012. 12. KOA Corporation. CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study ‐ 2010 Update. Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 2010. Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx 133 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 3.3: EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 6.1: E+P CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 6.2: E+P CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 6.3: EA WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 6.4: EA WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 6.5: EAC (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PHASE 1 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 6.6: EAC (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PHASE 1 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 6.7: EAC (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PHASE 2 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 6.8: EAC (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PHASE 2 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 6.9: EAC (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT BUILDOUT PHASE 3 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 6.10: EAC (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT BUILDOUT PHASE 3 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 7.1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 7.2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 7.3: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 7.4: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx APPENDIX 8.1: EAPC PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis L.1 ‐ TIA Report_UXR 2021‐10‐28.docx CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Evaluation Appendix L.2 January 2022 12615‐12 Revised VMT Eval.docx February 8, 2021 Mr. Garret Simon CM Wave Development, LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 81301 SUBJECT: CORAL MOUNTAIN SPECIFIC PLAN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS Dear Mr. Garret Simon: The following vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis has been prepared for the proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan (Project) in the City of La Quinta. For VMT analysis purposes, the Project consists of a master planned themed resort comprised of the following land uses:  The Wave Basin (a private recreation facility)..  A 150‐key hotel (with 1,900 square feet bar, 1,400 square feet restaurant, 4,200 square feet kitchen, 1,100 rooftop bar, 1,200 pool bar & grill, and 4,200 square feet spa)  104 attached dwelling units  496 detached dwelling units  60,000 square feet of retail  Wave village area (with 900 square feet shape studio, 1,600 square feet surf shop, 3,000 square feet board room, 1,800 square feet surf lounge/living room, 800 square feet surf classroom, a fitness pavilion, 1,400 square feet high performance center, and 5,500 square feet beach club)  The farm area (with 2,100 square feet barn, 2,500 square feet greenhouse, 1,400 square feet equipment barn, 300 square feet tool shed, 1,200 square feet family camp, 4,500 square feet gym, 2,000 square feet outfitters, and 2,000 square feet locker rooms) In addition, the back of house complex consists of 9,500 square feet resort operations, 1,500 square feet wave operations, and 1,000 square feet guardhouses. These back of house uses are also accounted for in the Project trip rates utilized in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (October 27, 2020). BACKGROUND Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay‐based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This Mr. Garret Simon CM Wave Development, LLC February 8, 2021 Page 2 12615‐12 Revised VMT Eval.docx statewide mandate was implemented on July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory). (1) Based on OPR’s Technical Advisory, the City of La Quinta has prepared their Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Policy (City Guidelines). (2) This analysis has been prepared based on the adopted City Guidelines. VMT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Policy (June 2020) (La Quinta Guidelines) are consistent with the VMT analysis methodology recommended by OPR. As outlined in the La Quinta Guidelines, a Mixed‐Use project such as Coral Mountain, which includes both residential and non‐residential uses has each type of uses analyzed independently, applying the following significance thresholds for each land use component:  For Residential Uses, VMT per resident exceeding a level of (1) 15 percent below the Citywide per resident VMT OR (2) 15 percent below regional VMT per resident, whichever is more stringent  For Retail Uses (Includes Hotels), a net increase in the total existing VMT for the region. PROJECT SCREENING The La Quinta Guidelines provide details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less‐than‐significant impact without conducting a more detailed analysis. Screening thresholds are broken into three types:  Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening  Low VMT Area Screening  Project Type Screening A land use project need only to meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less‐than‐ significant impact. For the purposes of this analysis, the initial VMT screening process has been conducted using the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM). TPA SCREENING Consistent with guidance identified in the Technical Advisory, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact. A TPA is defined as within ½ mile of: 1) an existing “major transit stop” (containing a rail transit station served by either bus services or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods) or 2 Mr. Garret Simon CM Wave Development, LLC February 8, 2021 Page 3 12615‐12 Revised VMT Eval.docx 2) an existing stop along a “high‐quality transit corridor” (a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours) The Project site is not located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high‐quality transit corridor. The TPA screening threshold is not met. LOW VMT AREA SCREENING The La Quinta Guidelines also states that, “residential and office projects located within a low VMT‐ generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment‐related and mixed‐use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.” The sub‐regional Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) is used to measure VMT performance within individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs). An estimate of the VMT in the Project’s physical location was calculated to determine the relevant TAZ’s VMT as compared to the jurisdictional average (see Attachment A). The Project is located in TAZ 4742 and would not appear to be within a low VMT generating TAZ. Exhibit 1 shows the Project area RIVTAM traffic analysis zones. The Low VMT Area screening threshold is not met. PROJECT TYPE SCREENING The retail component of the Project is anticipated to serve the local area. The La Quinta Guidelines allow retail projects of less than 50,000 square feet to be screened out if the project is serving the local area. Because the retail component of the Project is more than 50,000 square feet, the retail portion of the Project is not screened out. The La Quinta Guidelines identify projects that are local serving by nature, or that generate fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips be presumed to have a less‐than‐significant impact on VMT. Based on the Project’s trip generation, the Project is not considered a local serving or small enough to not warrant assessment, therefore, the Project would not be eligible to screen out based on project type screening. The Project Type screening threshold is not met. Since none of the project level screening criteria were met, a project level VMT analysis has been prepared. PROJECT VMT ASSESSMENT The VMT projections are based upon an updated version of the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) which became available in the CVAG region during 2016. RIVTAM is consistent with the SCAG draft 2016 RTP for the CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) 2040 project. 3 Mr. Garret Simon CM Wave Development, LLC February 8, 2021 Page 4 12615‐12 Revised VMT Eval.docx Travel Demand Models such as RIVTAM are broadly considered to be amongst the most accurate of available tools to assess regional and sub‐area VMT. While the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) maintains the regional travel demand model as a part of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy program (RTP/SCS), Riverside County maintains RIVTAM as a focused version of the regional model in support of travel forecasting needs of the various agencies and jurisdictions within the County. The latest available version of RIVTAM has been determined to be the best fit for developing the VMT thresholds as it has the most up to date land use information for the County, as well as refined zonal structure within the County. The 2040 Future Year model scenario is used for the cumulative conditions in the County. The five other counties included in the model (Ventura County, Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County, and Imperial County) are contributors to the trips to/from Riverside County during a typical weekday. Socioeconomic data (SED) and other model inputs are associated with each TAZ. Out of several different variables in the model SED, the VMT analysis mainly focused on population, households and employment that are used in the trip generation component. The model runs a series of complex steps to estimate daily trip productions and attractions by various trip purposes for each TAZ. The trip purposes are listed below. 1. Home‐Based Work Direct (HBWD) 2. Home‐Based Work Strategic (HBWS) 3. Home‐Based School (HBSC) 4. Home‐Based College and University (HBCU) 5. Home‐Based Shopping (HBSH) 6. Home‐Based Serving‐Passenger (HBSP) 7. Home‐Based Other (HBO) 8. Work‐Based Other (WBO) 9. Other‐Based Other (OBO) Productions and attractions are computed by RIVTAM for each trip purpose, and trip lengths are derived for each zone pair from the respective skim matrices in the model to compute the production and attraction VMT by purpose. RIVTAM is therefore a useful tool to estimate VMT as it considers interaction between different land uses based on socio‐economic data such as population, households, income, and employment. The La Quinta Guidelines identifies RIVTAM as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use projects in Riverside County. Project VMT has been calculated using the most current version of RIVTAM. Adjustments in socio‐ economic data (SED) (i.e., population and employment) have been made to a separate TAZ within the RIVTAM model to reflect the Project’s proposed population and employment uses. Separate TAZs are used to isolate the Project’s VMT. 4 Mr. Garret Simon CM Wave Development, LLC February 8, 2021 Page 5 12615‐12 Revised VMT Eval.docx Table 1 summarizes the service population (population and employment) estimates for the Project. It should be noted that the employment estimates have been developed from land use to employment generation factors from the Riverside County General Plan but modified for the specific Project characteristics and then confirmed with the Client. The wave basin and ancillary resort land uses are private, for use of residents and resort hotel guests. Although the Project employment is a mix of service and retail employment, the City of La Quinta guidelines are explicit indicating that the hotel land uses are categorized as retail uses for the purposes of VMT analysis. TABLE 1: POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES Land Use Estimated Service Population Residential 1,698 Residents Hotel & Wave Basin 434 Employees Commercial Retail 240 Employees Hotel 300 Hotel Occupants Total:2,672 Service Population Adjustments to population and employment factors for the Project TAZ were made to the RIVTAM base year model (2012) and the cumulative year model (2040). Each model was then run with the updated SED factors included for the Project TAZ. PROJECT RESIDENTIAL VMT CALCULATION Consistent with recommendations contained in the La Quinta Guidelines, the residential calculation of VMT is based upon the home‐based project‐generated VMT per population. This calculation focuses on the occupants of dwelling units within the Project land uses, whereas hotel occupants, wave basin visitors and retail patrons are evaluated separately using the boundary method discussed below. Table 2 shows the home‐based VMT associated with the Project for both baseline and cumulative conditions. VMT estimates are provided for both the base year model (2012) and cumulative year model (2040), and linear interpolation was used to determine the Project’s home‐based baseline (2020) VMT. TABLE 2: BASELINE AND CUMULATIVE PROJECT RESIDENTIAL HOME‐BASED VMT Project 2012 Project 2040 Project 2020 (interpolated) Residents 1,698 1,698 1,698 VMT 19,437 20,642 19,773 VMT / Resident 11.45 12.14 11.64 5 Mr. Garret Simon CM Wave Development, LLC February 8, 2021 Page 6 12615‐12 Revised VMT Eval.docx For baseline (2020) conditions, the residential portion of the Project generates 19,773 Home‐Based VMT. There are an estimated 1,698 Project residents. The result is approximately 11.64 home‐based VMT / Capita for the 2020 Baseline with Project conditions. In addition, the cumulative (2040) Project scenario results in approximately 12.14 VMT / SP. For comparison purposes, Citywide home‐based VMT estimates have been also developed from the “with Project” RIVTAM model run for baseline conditions. Once total home‐based VMT for the area is calculated, total area VMT is then normalized by dividing by the population as shown on Table 3. TABLE 3: BASE YEAR CITYWIDE HOME‐BASED VMT Category City of La Quinta VMT 544,993 Population 42,000 VMT / Resident 12.98 The estimates of baseline residential home‐based Project VMT / Capita are compared to the City of La Quinta VMT of 12.98 home‐based VMT / Capita. The City of La Quinta guidelines indicate that residential VMT exceeding the threshold of 15 percent below the Citywide VMT per resident (11.03 VMT / capita) represents a Project impact. The Project home‐based VMT / Capita of 11.64 is greater than the City VMT / Capita threshold, indicating a potentially significant VMT. The Project home‐based VMT / Capita of 11.64 equates to an average home‐based VMT / Dwelling Unit of 32.94. As a private resort, home based travel to and from the Project includes less of the commute activity associated with typical suburban homes. Some Project vehicle trips will be longer and some shorter than the average Project home‐based VMT / Dwelling Unit of 32.94. With restaurant and recreation and retail and service functions available on site, some of the home‐based Project trips are shorter or even captured as pedestrian or bicycle interactions. However, this is balanced by the occurrence of “resort area arrival” and “resort area departure” trips, which are on the lengthier side of the range of home‐based trips included in the average trip length data for the Project residential units. On any given day, some of the Project residential units will generate departures or arrivals to and from locations outside of Coachella Valley. These “resort area arrival” and “resort area departure” trips for out‐of‐valley travelers often make intermediate stops (auto fuel, restroom break, food for travel, food for the resort stay, etc) while traveling to or from a resort property from locations far away. In such cases, VMT is appropriately measured to the intervening commercial or service stop location. Considering the unique trip making characteristics of the residential portion of this proposed development, the Project home‐based VMT datasets derived from RIVTAM appear to be reasonable estimates of average daily activity associated residential units in the Project, separate from the Project non‐residential uses. 6 Mr. Garret Simon CM Wave Development, LLC February 8, 2021 Page 7 12615‐12 Revised VMT Eval.docx PROJECT EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ON VMT As noted above, the VMT analysis methodology for retail uses (including hotels) focuses on the net increase in the total existing VMT for the region. The project consists of approximately 674 employees, including 240 employees associated with the 60,000 square feet of neighborhood shopping center retail uses and 434 employees associated with the hotel and wave basin uses. Travel activity associated with total link‐level VMT was extracted from the “without Project employment” and “with Project employment” RIVTAM model run for 2012 and 2040 conditions, then interpolated for baseline (2020) conditions. This methodology is commonly referred to as “boundary method” and includes the total VMT for all vehicle trips with one or both trip ends within a specific geographic area. The “boundary method” VMT per service population for the CVAG subregion is utilized to normalize VMT into a standard unit for comparison purposes, focusing on the total population and employment in the Coachella Valley. Once total VMT for the area is calculated, total area VMT is then normalized by dividing by the respective service population (i.e., population and employment of the Coachella Valley) as shown on Table 4. To determine whether there is a significant impact using the boundary method, CVAG area VMT with the project employment is compared to without project conditions. TABLE 4: BASE YEAR SUB‐REGIONAL LINK‐LEVEL VMT Without Project Employment With Project Employment VMT Interacting with CVAG Area 15,173,739 15,166,580 CVAG Area Population 510,550 510,550 CVAG Area Employment 193,090 193,764 VMT / Service Population 21.56 21.53 The CVAG subregion VMT / SP without Project employment is estimated at 21.56, whereas with the Project employment, the CVAG subregion VMT is estimated at 21.53. The project’s effect on VMT (for non‐residential uses) is not considered significant because it results in a cumulative link‐level boundary CVAG VMT per service population decrease under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR VMT REDUCTION Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies have been evaluated for the purpose of reducing VMT impacts determined to be potentially significant. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA, 2010) provides information on individual measures for potential reduction in VMT. Of the 50 transportation measures presented by CAPCOA, approximately 41 are applicable at a building and site 7 Mr. Garret Simon CM Wave Development, LLC February 8, 2021 Page 8 12615‐12 Revised VMT Eval.docx level. The remaining 9 measures are functions of, or depend on, site location and/or actions by local and regional agencies or funders. On page 58 of the CAPCOA 2010 document, ten percent is referenced as the maximum reduction when combining multiple mitigation strategies for the suburban place type (characterized by dispersed, low‐ density, single‐use, automobile dependent land use patterns) and requires a project to contain a diverse land use mix, workforce housing, and project‐specific transit. The maximum percent reductions were derived from a limited comparison of aggregate citywide VMT performance rather than based on data comparing the actual performance of VMT reduction strategies in the place type. Even under the most favorable circumstances, projects located within a suburban context, such as the proposed Project evaluated here, can realize a maximum 10 percent reduction in VMT through implementation of feasible TDM measures. The Project incorporates design features and attributes promoting trip reduction. Because these features/attributes are integral to the Project, and/or are regulatory requirements, they are not considered to be mitigation measures. However, the RIVTAM does not incorporate modeling of these features, so they are considered after the VMT data is extracted from the traffic model. Project vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are reduced by the following Project design features/attributes, which are anticipated to collectively reduce Project home‐based VMT by approximately 6%:  Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non‐auto modes of transport. For example, when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as commercial and resort land uses, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her recreational and retail needs. The Project’s mixed‐use environment could provide for a potential reduction in Project residential VMT of 3%.  The project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Improved street network characteristics within the Project include sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian‐oriented environments from auto‐ oriented environments. The Project would provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The Project would minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. The Project includes sidewalk connections, particularly to / from the retail areas interacting with residential and resort uses on‐site. The Project’s implementation of this measure could provide for a potential reduction in Project residential VMT of 2%. 8 Mr. Garret Simon CM Wave Development, LLC February 8, 2021 Page 9 12615‐12 Revised VMT Eval.docx  The project will implement marketing strategies to optimize on‐site resort and residential uses. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful trip reduction strategies. Marketing strategies may include: o Resident member benefits that include use of the resort amenities o Event promotions o Publications The Project’s implementation of this measure could provide for a potential reduction in Project residential VMT of 1%. In summary, travel demand modeling of VMT for the Project based upon City of La Quinta guidelines indicates a potential impact for residential uses while also indicating the Project’s non‐residential uses do not exceed VMT thresholds. Project design features (taken into account after the modeling process) reduce residential VMT from 11.64 VMT per resident to 10.94 VMT per resident, which is less than the City’s VMT residential threshold of 11.03 VMT per resident. The unique mixed‐use characteristics of the Project, combined with walkability and connectivity design elements, optimize on‐site interaction and result in a lower VMT than standalone uses. If you have any questions, please contact us at (949) 375‐2435 for John or (714) 585‐0574 for Marlie. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. John Kain, AICP Marlie Whiteman, PE Principal Senior Associate 9 Mr. Garret Simon CM Wave Development, LLC February 8, 2021 Page 10 12615‐12 Revised VMT Eval.docx REFERENCES 1. Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. State of California : s.n., December 2018. 2. City of La Quinta. Vehicle Miles Traveled Aanlysis Policy. June 23, 2020. 3. County of Riverside. Appendix E: Socioeconomic Build‐Out Assumptions and Methodology. County of Riverside : s.n., April 2017. 10 4713 4722 4738 4729 4725 4724 4741 4737 4754 47874771 4791 47904776 4753 4775 4774 4788 4773 4769 47514736 4755 4711 4642 4705 4756 4809 4786 4740 4806 4810 4803 4813 48124747 4721 4757 4772 47984783 4743 4764 4792 4801 4777 4692 4767 4781 4766 4731 4758 4709 48044708 4808 47854734 4780 4752 4784 4761 4704 4799 4746 4814 4765 4796 4797 4807 4702 4745 4759 4699 4816 4742 4739 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT AREA RIVTAM TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis _N 12615 - 01 - TAZ.mxd LEGEND EXAMPLE OF RIVTAM LOW VMT TAZ RiVTAM TAZ ENCOMPASSING CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT SEPARATE TAZ ADDED FOR PROJECT REPRESENTATION IN RIVTAM 11 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 12 12615‐12 Revised VMT Eval.docx ATTACHMENT A LOW VMT AREA SCREENING CALCULATIONS RivTAM TAZ 4742Vehicle Flow OD Total 3902Automobiles363Trucks26VMT OD Total5,1196VMT OD Automobiles 4,114VMT OD Trucks1,005Trip Length Total13.143Automobiles11.32Trucks38.42TAZ 4742HB536Trip Length Total22.738OD VMT/SP10PA HB VMT/POP11VMT HB 727Emp5096.5824.08SP531 OD = Origin‐Destination2 Vehicle Flow OD = Automobiles + Trucks3 Trip Length = VMT OD Total/Vehicle Flow OD Total4 PA = Production‐Attraction5 HB = Home‐Based6 2012 home‐based vehicle trips generated by TAZ 4742 based upon RIVTAM7 2012 home‐based vehicle miles traveled generated by TAZ 4742 based upon RIVTAM8 Trip Length = VMT PA Total/Vehicle Flow PA Total9 SED = Socio‐Economic Data10 OD VMT/SP = Total Origin‐destination vehicle miles traveled per service population11 PA HB VMT/POP = Total production‐attraction vehicle miles traveled per residentC:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 VMT Matrix Method Summary.xlsx]4742 HB VMTSUMMARYTAZ 4742 ‐ No Project 2012Trip LengthSED9TAZ 4742Base Year (2012)Base Year (2012)Base Year (2012)TAZ 4742TAZ 4742TAZ 4742Base Year (2012)Vehicle Flow OD Method1 OD Method Vehicle Miles Traveled1 Base Year (2012)Trip LengthTAZ 4742TAZ 4742Base Year (2012)Base Year (2012)Vehicle Flow PA Method4PA Method Vehicle Miles Traveled4A-1 CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Traffic Response to Comments Appendix L.3 January 2022 Date: November 8, 2021 Subject: Responses to August 3, 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Comments – Expert Review of Traffic Report (Appendix L.1), VMT (Appendix L.2), Trip Generation Comparison (Appendix N) & Draft EIR (Section 4.13 Transportation) for the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan, SCH#2021020310, in the City of La Quinta, CA The following responses are provided for the comments/questions from Fred Minagar (Minagar & Associates, Inc.): Traffic Report (Appendix L.1), June 2021 1. Page 1/140, Section 1.1, & Page 139/140 References, the City of La Quinta's Traffic Study Guidelines (Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, dated October 13, 2017) should also be included. Response ‐ The date on the document reference has been updated. 2. Various available General Plan Circulation Element documents prepared by lteris and by Terra Nova for the City of La Quinta (prepared July 2012 and adopted in 2013) refer to La Quinta 2035, while the General Plan Buildout 2040 is used in the subject DEIR. What is the source of 2040 GP Circulation data in the reports? Response ‐ Two sources were used to develop the 2040 General Plan Buildout traffic projections: (1) the available General Plan Circulation Element documents prepared by Iteris for the City of La Quinta, and (2) an updated version of the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) which became available in the CVAG region during 2016. The RivTAM model is consistent with the SCAG draft 2016 RTP for the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) 2040 project. Although the City GP traffic projections prepared by Iteris referred to “La Quinta 2035”, this was the title used for the General Plan buildout scenario at the time. The City GP data prepared by Iteris generally exceeds the 2040 RivTAM projections, because buildout of all City land uses can be anticipated to occur beyond typical 20‐year planning horizons. 3. Page 9/140, on Table 1‐5: Summary of Phased Intersection Operations, for the Intersection #9, under Phase 2 (2023) "Without Project" scenario, the intersection delay values cannot be lower than Phase 1 (2021) during the AM peak hour. Response ‐ Delay values fluctuate due to changes in traffic volumes, signal timing, etc. which can vary over time. A slight decrease in intersection delay values reflecting additional traffic volumes in certain traffic movements (e.g., right or left turn movements) in an intersection is not unusual or unreasonable. It is possible for the average delay to decrease with an increase in traffic volumes if these volume increases occur in movements with less than the average delay. Even with increases in more than one movement on an approach to an intersection, the net effect can still be a decrease in average delay if the movements with less than average delay increase sufficiently. The .01 difference between November 8, 2021 Page 2 12615 ‐ Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx Phase 1 and Phase 2 for intersection 9 is negligible and basically indicates no effective change to the delay value between these two phases at this location. 4. Page 10/140, on Table 1‐6: Summary of General Plan Buildout (2040) Intersection Operations, for the Intersection #16, under "With Project" scenario, the intersection delay values cannot be lower than "Without Project" during the AM peak hour. Response ‐ As discussed above in the response to Comment #3, minor changes such as this in intersection delay values are not unusual. The .04 difference between without and with Project for intersection 16 is negligible and basically indicates no effective change to the delay value between these two scenarios at this location. 5. Page 11/140, on Table 1‐7, there are missing results for Phases I (2021) & II (2023). Response ‐ Table 1‐7 is summarizes buildout of the Project for Interim Year conditions (2026) as well as buildout of the Project for long range conditions (2040). The Phase 1 analysis is shown on Table 6‐6 and Phase 2 analysis is shown on Table 6‐8. 6. Page 11/140, on Table 1‐7, LOS results need to be shown for each segment in order to easily determine level of significance. Response ‐ Roadway segment LOS is considered acceptable if the V/C is 0.90 or less. In addition, roadway segments are not typically recommended for widening unless peak hour intersection analysis indicates further upstream or downstream segment improvements are necessary. For this reason, daily roadway capacities provide "rule of thumb" estimates for planning purposes. Actual daily capacity is affected by such factors as intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Because the V/C ratio is 0.90 or less for all roadway segments, the level of service for all segments will be acceptable. 7. Page 11/140, on Table 1‐7, a column needs to be added to show potential impact/level of significance. Response ‐ As discussed above in the response to Comment #6, roadway segment LOS is considered acceptable if the V/C is 0.90 or less. In addition, roadway segments are not typically recommended for widening unless peak hour intersection analysis indicates improvement is necessary. The V/Cs shown are within the acceptable range and, therefore, the level of service for these segments is acceptable and no significant impacts were identified. November 8, 2021 Page 3 12615 ‐ Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx 8. Page 26/140, on Exhibit 3‐1, for the Intersection #1, southbound approach, per the existing geometry, one shared thru‐right, one thru and one left turn lanes configuration should be used rather than one right, two‐thru and one left turn lanes. Response ‐ The DEF label indicates the right turn lane is defacto, meaning that the right turn capability exists although not formally designated. An unstriped/defacto right turn lane exists where there is sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Because this defacto right turn lanes exists and is currently in use, it is appropriate to use this intersection configuration in the analysis. 9. Page 26/140, on Exhibit 3‐1, for the Intersection #4, eastbound approach, per the existing geometry, one shared thru‐right, one thru and one left turn lanes configuration should be used rather than one right, two‐thru and one left turn lanes. Response ‐ As discussed above in the response to Comment #8, this intersection also has a functional defacto right turn lane and, for this reason, it is appropriate to use this intersection configuration in the analysis. 10. Page 26/140, on Exhibit 3‐1, for the Intersection #7, for all approaches of the roundabout, per the existing geometry, one exclusive right and one shared thru‐ left configuration should be used rather than one shared thru‐right and one shared thru‐left lanes. Response ‐ Exhibit 3‐1 shows one shared left‐through lane and one free right turn lane on each movement, which is consistent with current lane approaches. 11. Page 29/140, Traffic Volumes and Conditions: While in overall the Traffic Impact Study has conformed with the City of La Quinta TIA Guidelines EB#06‐13, the fact that for this very sensitive mega project various historic traffic volumes from Thursday, August 15, 2017, Tuesday, April 9, 2019, Tuesday, May 7, 2019 and Tuesday, September 10, 2019 have been used, is troublesome! The cost associated with collecting fresh counts for 17 intersections right after the approval of the Scoping Agreement on February 12, 2020 (Appendix 1.1, Page 1.1‐1) was very low prior to the start of COVID‐19 pandemic on March 15, 2020. Traffic volumes are the foundation of each traffic impact study. Furthermore, for this mega project, the traffic volumes for 9 major intersections were estimated while they could have been freshly counted! In order to establish public trust, the most current traffic volumes ought to be used. Since the City of La Quinta is a growing dynamic city (per Table 4‐4, Page 56/140 there are 41 ambient new developments within the project boundaries), therefore, the overall validity of the traffic volumes is questionable! Response ‐ Acceptability of the traffic count data was confirmed during the scoping agreement process with City staff, as documented in the Traffic Study Scoping Agreement attached as Appendix 1.1 to the TIA. November 8, 2021 Page 4 12615 ‐ Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx Traffic counts were increased as described in the scoping agreement “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 as required per City of La Quinta’s Traffic Study Guidelines (EB#06‐13). As explained on page 29 of the revised TIA appended to the Final EIR, the average AM/PM peak hour intersection growth between 2017 and 2019 counts data at selected study area and nearby intersections is approximately 2.66%. The additional 2.66% growth rate is applied to the study area intersections with 2017 counts to reflect 2019 conditions.” Accordingly, the traffic counts accurately reflect 2019 conditions and properly take into account seasonal differences in traffic levels. 12. Page 38/140, on Table 3‐4, LOS results need to be shown for each segment in order to easily determine level of significance. Response ‐ See Response #6 13. Pages 41‐43/140, Tables 4‐1, 4‐2, 4‐3, percentages and source(s) of each of internal and pass‐by (in some cases) reduction should be shown for each land use category. Response ‐ Internal trips were calculated by considering potential interactions between the different uses (e.g., residential, commercial, etc.) on the site, rather than utilization of an overall percent reduction. Therefore, presentation of the internal trip values is more accurate. Internal interactions vary by peak hour and by land use. For example, in Table 4‐1, the shopping center interacts internally more in the morning with residential / resort uses than the overall or daily interaction for these uses. 14. Page 43, Table 4‐3, at the bottom, the last row, the totals for AM In and AM Out ought to be 143 & 304 rather than 147 & 300 respectively. Response ‐ The Table 4‐3 totals for AM in and AM out are correct as shown in the TIA. 15. Page 60/140, why wasn't SCAG's 2020 RTP utilized? Response ‐ The RivTAM used in the analysis is consistent with the SCAG draft 2016 RTP for the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) 2040 project. This version of RivTAM, which is consistent with the SCAG 2016 RTP, is the source of traffic projections indicated in the Riverside County guidelines (December 2020). During 2021, the Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) developed the Riverside County Transportation Model (RIVCOM) which is consistent with the SCAG 2020 RTP. RIVCOM is using base year data for 2018 and a future year of 2045. However, the County of Riverside has not yet accepted RIVCOM for use in traffic studies. November 8, 2021 Page 5 12615 ‐ Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx 16. Page 109/140, on Table 7‐2, LOS results need to be shown for each segment in order to easily determine level of significance. Response ‐ See Response #6. 17. Page 111/140, on Table 7‐4, LOS results need to be shown for each segment in order to easily determine level of significance. Response ‐ See Response #6. 18. Page 114, Table 7‐5, for Intersections #20, 21 & 22, why the exact Storage Lengths are not shown while the 95th Percentage Queue Lengths are? Response ‐ Precise design of the commercial area has not yet been completed and will be subject to the City’s SPD process, including CEQA compliance and public hearings. Intersections 20, 21, and 22 are locations where on‐site driveway are anticipated to interface with adjacent roadways. As the locations of these commercial site driveways have not yet been determined, on‐site driveway lengths consider the 95th percentile queue lengths indicated in Table 7‐5. 19. Page 115/140, Section 8.2, while it is understandable that for the Special Events, the ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide the weekend rates, how come a survey or data of a similar facility wasn’t used as opposed to estimating? Where is the source of 2.4 vehicle occupancy? Response ‐ The unique land use types and quantities for the Project were presented in the approved scoping agreement, which represents trip generation specifically related to anticipated Project usage. The 2.4 vehicle occupancy factor (included in the approved scoping agreement) reflects the tendency of event attendees to arrive in pairs or small groups, rather than primarily solo. Since there is no comparable existing private facility available to conduct counts, conservative assumptions as reviewed and approved by the City were used. 20. Page 118/140, Table 8‐3, Trip Generation Results for 2,500 Guests for Wave Basin Facility, are those AM & PM estimated traffic generation numbers realistic?. Response ‐ Table 8‐3 shows Arrival Peak Hour and Departure Peak Hour, rather than typical AM and PM weekday peak hours. It is realistic that the Arrival and Departure Peak Hour volumes are each approximately 14% to 15% of the weekend daily volume whereas on a typical weekday (see Table 4‐ 3) the peak hour volumes for this use are less than 4%. These trip generation calculations are considered conservative because they assume there will be 1,537 additional daily trips for the special events, in addition to the 8 external daily trips per residence and nearly 4 external daily trips per hotel November 8, 2021 Page 6 12615 ‐ Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx room, even though many attendees of the special events will be staying in the Project residences and hotel rooms. 21. Page 127, Table 8‐5, for the Intersection #20, show the exact Storage Length for NBL/NBR for the Departure. Response ‐ See response #18. 22. Page 128/140, for the special events, in addition to the preparation of Traffic Management Plan, an additional Traffic Control Plan must be prepared and signed by a registered Traffic and/or Civil Engineer in California to assure public safety and smooth traffic navigation when 2,500 guests show up at the Wave Basin Facility during special events during weekends. Response ‐ Mitigation measures TRA‐9 through TRA‐14 are intended to address traffic operations with events involving up to 2,500 guests. The special event traffic management plan will include Traffic Control Plans as necessary as determined by the City and the Police Department. 23. Page 139/140, ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017 ought to be cited not 9th edition, 2012! Response ‐ Text has been corrected as requested. Draft EIR, June 2021 24. Page 1‐6, why only 12 acres of the Wave Facility has been used for trip generation purposes, while the Proposed Land Use Summary does list quite different acreages? Response ‐ As explained on pp. 3‐19 and 3‐20 of the Draft EIR, the Wave Basin facility is approximately 16.62 acres, with the water body footprint itself being approximately 12.14 acres. The Wave Basin subarea in Planning Area III totals approximately 31.2 acres, and includes the equipment, storage and related facilities required to operate the Wave Basin. The wave basin is a unique private recreation facility that does not have an established ITE trip generation rate. As indicated in the original approved TIA scope for this Project, trip generation rates for the Wave Basin Facility are derived from the San Diego Association of Governments for a developed 12‐acre recreational park, which generates a total of 48 peak hour trips and 600 daily trips. All other visitors to the Wave Basin Area are captured by the other Planning Area III uses, including the Wave Club, the Resort Hotel and the Farm (see Table 4‐3 of the TIA). These trip generation rates are consistent with the City of La Quinta Traffic Study Guidelines (EB # 06‐13) and confirmed in the Traffic Study Scoping Agreement approved by the City of La Quinta and included as Appendix 1.1 of the TIA. ‐ 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 November 8, 2021 Page 7 12615 ‐ Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx uses are also included in the trip generation calculations. The wave basin facility will be utilized by hotel guests, but outside trip generation is also included for things like off‐site lunch, wave basin employees, etc. Area residents and visitors will use the commercial retail area facilities (which typically include merchandise and restaurant land uses). The total internal/pass‐by trip ends have been adjusted in a manner to ensure that no “double‐counting” occurs before assigning the project trips to the roadway network. 25. Page 1‐30, TRA‐9, line 4, the word "not" should not be there! Response ‐ Mitigation Measure TRA‐9 is correct as currently worded. Either the traffic improvements required for Phase 3 of the Project need to be completed prior to holding any special events, or a focused traffic analysis must be completed to show that any such improvements are not required to maintain acceptable levels of service. 26. There should be an additional condition/clause/TRA listed for the subject project, stipulating that upon the completion of the last phase of the project (6‐ 12 months later), the City of La Quinta at the expense of the project developer, should monitor the traffic conditions surrounding the project site for any potential abnormality during a random weekend special event and assess the traffic Level of Service and propose appropriate mitigation measures Response ‐ Mitigation Measure TRA‐11 gives the City the authority to require the special event traffic monitoring consistent with the suggestion in this comment and to impose additional requirements to the extent warranted to avoid any significant traffic or parking impacts. 27. Page 3‐17, why only 12 acres of the Wave Facility has been used for trip generation purposes, while the Proposed Planning Area Summary does list quite different acreages? Response ‐ See response #24. 28. Page 4.13‐2, Proposed Project, why only 12 acres of the Wave Basin has been used for trip generation purposes, while in the Proposed Project description does list quite different acreages? Response ‐ See response #24. 29. Page 4.13‐18, Table 4.13‐10 Trip Generation Summary, why are there discrepancies for the quantities for Shopping Center, Wave Basin Facility, Wave Village and The Farm as compared with the similar tables in the Traffic Study? Response November 8, 2021 Page 8 12615 ‐ Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx ‐ Table 4.3‐10 on page 3.13‐18 of the Draft EIR is identical to Table 4‐3 [Project Buildout Trip Generation Summary], except that there is a typo in the number of square feet of the shopping center use, which has been corrected to 60 TSF in the Final EIR. The hourly peak hour and daily trip generation rates are identical in both tables for all uses. 30. Page 4.13‐21, Table 4.13‐13 Trip Generation Rates, why are there discrepancies for the quantities for Wave Basin Facility and Wave Village as compared with the similar Table 4‐3 in the VMT Report (Appendix L.2)? Response ‐ The total peak hour and daily external trips are accurate and consistent in both Table 4.13‐13 on page 4.13‐21 of the Draft EIR and Table 4‐3 in the TIA. Although certain of the other quantities appear to have been incorrectly inserted into Table 4.13‐13 in the Draft EIR, these discrepancies did not affect the Project totals, and thus did not affect the assessment of traffic impacts. A corrected Table 4.13‐13 has been included in the Final EIR. The VMT Report does not include Table 4‐3, and there are no discrepancies between the VMT Report and the Draft EIR. 31. Page 4.13‐41, Table 4.13‐24 Project Phase 3 Fair Share Contributions, why are locations #16 & 17 missing? (not the same as Table 9‐1 the Traffic Report)? Response ‐ Table 9‐1 in the TIA is identical to Table 4.13‐29 on page 4.13‐51 of the Draft EIR, which show the Project’s fair share percentages to project area intersections, and both include Intersection #16 and #17. Table 4.13‐24 of the Draft EIR (referenced in the comment) focuses is Specific to Phase 3 and is not intended to match Table 9‐1 in the TIA. 32. Page 4.13‐26 Weekend Special Event Trip Generation, show percentages and source(s) of reductions for the internal and pass‐by trips Response ‐ See response #13. 33. Page 4.13‐59, the growth factors for traffic volumes for the Horizon Year 2040 for with and without project conditions ought to be documented Response ‐ See response #2 for explanation of how the 2040 volumes were developed, which was based upon General Plan buildout projections, rather than growth factors. 34. Page 4.13‐62, TRA‐9, line 3, the word "not" should not be there! Response ‐ Mitigation Measure TRA‐9 is correct as currently worded. Either the traffic improvements required for Phase 3 of the Project need to be completed prior to holding any special events, or a focused November 8, 2021 Page 9 12615 ‐ Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx traffic analysis must be completed to show that any such improvements are not required to maintain acceptable levels of service. 35. Page 4.13‐62, a new TRA to be added to state that the TMP and TCP must be signed by a registered Traffic and/or Civil Engineer in California. Response ‐ See response #22. VMT Evaluation, June 2021 The VMT Analysis was updated in February 2021. It is our understanding that information from the February analysis was utilized in the DEIR. However, a prior version of the VMT assessment letter was inadvertently attached as Appendix L.1 to the DEIR. The February 2021 version is attached to these responses and our responses below refer to this version. 36. The TAZ and low VMT maps for the subject project should be included in the VMT report. Response ‐ The TAZs are shown on Exhibit 1 of the February 2021 VMT evaluation. Low VMT data is included in Attachment 1. The February 2021 VMT evaluation was performed consistent with La Quinta VMT guidelines at the time, rather than County of Riverside guidelines which include low VMT maps. 37. Page 4 of 9, Table 1, why is the title different than the corresponding Table 4.13‐ 30 in the DEIR document? Response ‐ Table 1 in the February 2021 VMT evaluation is identical to Table 4.13‐30 in the Draft EIR. 38. Why does the City of La Quinta’s VMT Guidelines categorizes Hotel Land Use as Retail, while other cities in California assume as Service? Response ‐ The City of LA Quinta adopted its VMT Guidelines in accordance with OPR’s December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which includes recommended thresholds of significance for residential, office, and retail uses for consideration by local agencies in developing their own thresholds, which may address other land use types (see pp. 15 – 17 of OPR Technical Advisory). ‐ The City of La Quinta’s adopted VMT Guidelines expressly includes hotel uses within the retail use category and adopted the retail threshold of significance recommended in the OPR Technical Advisory. A retail business, for the purposes of the employment standards act (ESA) is a business that sells goods or services directly to consumers or end‐users. Such services include restaurants, hospitality, barber shops, and other services for the comfort and convenience of the public. The November 8, 2021 Page 10 12615 ‐ Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx hospitality sector includes food and beverages, lodging, recreation, travel & tourism, and meetings & events. 39. Project Service/Retail VMT Calculations need to be explicitly shown in the VMT report. Response ‐ As indicated on Page 4 of the February 2021 VMT report, VMT is calculated for the Project based upon the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM), as required under the City of La Quinta’s adopted VMT Guidelines. The model runs a series of complex steps to estimate daily trip productions and attractions by various trip purposes for each TAZ. The trip purposes include Home‐ Based Work Direct (HBWD), Home‐Based Work Strategic (HBWS), Home‐Based School (HBSC), Home‐Based College and University (HBCU), Home‐Based Shopping (HBSH), Home‐Based Serving‐ Passenger (HBSP), Home‐Based Other (HBO), Work‐Based Other (WBO), and Other‐Based Other (OBO). ‐ Productions and attractions are computed by RivTAM for each trip purpose, and trip lengths are derived for each zone pair from the respective skim matrices in the model to compute the production and attraction VMT by purpose. 40. Page 6 of 9, Table 4: the title needs to be clarified, Base Year or Base Year Model or Base line or Cum Year Model? Response ‐ Table 4 of the February 2021 VMT document is entitled “Base Year Sub‐Regional Link‐Level VMT”. As indicated in the text above Table 4, the base year is 2020. 41. Page 7 of 9, for the three (3) sources of VMT reductions of 3%, 2% & 1% each corresponding source from CAPCOA must be documented. Response ‐ The first VMT reduction factor applied recognizes the proximity of different land uses. The CAPCOA measure is LUT‐3 which indicates a range of 9‐30% VMT reduction is applicable for a mixed‐use project. A conservative reduction of only 3% was assumed in the Project’s VMT analysis. It is likely that the mix of uses in the Project will result in a greater reduction in vehicle trips and VMT. ‐ The second VMT reduction factor applies recognizes the design elements that allow for connectivity between different uses and areas that will reduce the need to use a vehicle for short trips. The CAPCOA measure is SDT‐1, which indicates a range of 0‐2% applicable VMT reduction, and SDT‐2, which indicates a range of .25‐1.00% applicable VMT reduction. A reduction of 2% was applied in recognition of the high‐level of multi‐modal connectivity that will be provided based on the design of the Project. ‐ The third VMT reduction is the marketing strategies for commute trip reductions. The CAPCOA measure is TRT‐7, which indicates a range of 0.8 – 4.0%applicable VMT reduction A conservative reduction of 1% was assumed in the Project’s VMT analysis. November 8, 2021 Page 11 12615 ‐ Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx 42. Table 4‐3, Project Buildout (2026) Trip Generation Summary, percentages and source(s) of each of internal and pass‐by (in some cases) reduction should be shown for each land use category. Response ‐ The prior Table 4‐3 in the November 2020 draft version of the VMT evaluation provided a recap of the LOS report trip generation. This table was redundant and not directly relevant to the VMT assessment and was removed from the February 2021 VMT evaluation. See response to comment 13 above for information related to Table 4‐3. 43. Table 4‐3, Project Buildout (2026) Trip Generation Summary, why is the Farm Land Use missing? Response ‐ See response #42. 44. Table 4‐3, Project Buildout (2026) Trip Generation Summary, why is this table different than Table 4 .13‐ 13on Page 4.13‐21of the DEIR? Response ‐ See response #42. 45. For the Wave Pool Facility, since the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition 2017 does not provide any rates, SANDAG’s Manual for Recreation Park (Developed) from April 2002 has been used for the VMT, DEIR & Traffic Report. The aforementioned source is from over 20 years ago, how come surveys of two similar facilities were not used? Response ‐ See responses #19 and #24. CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Average Surfer Population Kelly Slater Wave Company Appendix L.4 January 2022 /D&LHQHJD3ODFH/RV$QJHOHV&$.6:DYH&RFRP 7KHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGLQWKLVWUDQVPLVVLRQPD\FRQWDLQSULYLOHJHGDQGFRQILGHQWLDOLQIRUPDWLRQ,WLVLQWHQGHGRQO\IRUWKHXVHRIWKHSHUVRQVQDPHGDERYH,I\RXDUHQRWWKHLQWHQGHG UHFLSLHQW\RXDUHKHUHE\QRWLILHGWKDWDQ\UHYLHZGLVVHPLQDWLRQGLVWULEXWLRQRUGXSOLFDWLRQRIWKLVFRPPXQLFDWLRQLVVWULFWO\SURKLELWHG,I\RXDUHQRWWKHLQWHQGHGUHFLSLHQWSOHDVHFRQWDFWWKH VHQGHUE\UHSO\HPDLODQGGHVWUR\DOOFRSLHVRIWKHRULJLQDOPHVVDJH EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϬϰ͕ϮϬϮϭ DĞŵŽ͗ŽƌĂůDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀĞƌĂŐĞĂŝůǇ^ƵƌĨĞƌWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ dŽƚĂůĂǀĞƌĂŐĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵƐƵƌĨĞƌƐĂƚŽƌĂůDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶŝŶtĂǀĞĂƐŝŶƉĞƌĚĂǇŝƐϭϯϬ͕ǁŝƚŚƐƵƌĨĞƌƐĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚĂĐƌŽƐƐϯĚŝƐƚŝŶĐƚ ǁĂǀĞǌŽŶĞƐ͖ϭϴƐƵƌĨĞƌƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĚĂǇŽŶƚŚĞDĂŝŶtĂǀĞ͕ĂŶĚϱϲƐƵƌĨĞƌƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĚĂǇŽŶĞĂĐŚŽĨƚŚĞŶĚĂǇ tĂǀĞƐ͘dŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇŝŶƚŚĞtĂǀĞĂƐŝŶĂƚĂŶǇŐŝǀĞŶƚŝŵĞŝƐϲƐƵƌĨĞƌƐŽŶƚŚĞDĂŝŶtĂǀĞĂŶĚϭϮƐƵƌĨĞƌƐŝŶĞĂĐŚŽĨ ƚŚĞŶĚĂǇtĂǀĞƐ͘ &/'͘ϭ &ŝŐƵƌĞϭĚĞƉŝĐƚƐĂƚŚĞŽƌĞƚŝĐĂůƐƵƌĨƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞƚŽŵĂƉŽƵƚĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĚĂŝůǇƐƵƌĨĞƌƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƐŝƚĞ͘ tĞĞǆƉĞĐƚƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞƐĞƐĂŵĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵĐĂƉĂĐŝƚŝĞƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƐƉĞĐŝĂůĞǀĞŶƚƐ͕ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚǁĞĞǆƉĞĐƚĨĞǁĞƌƐƵƌĨĞƌƐǁŝůůďĞŝŶ ƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌĂƚŽŶĞƚŝŵĞĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůĞǀĞŶƚƐďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞĨŽĐƵƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞDĂŝŶtĂǀĞ͕ƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶ ƚŚĞďĞŐŝŶŶŝŶŐƐƵƌĨĞƌĐůĂƐƐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞŶĚĂǇƐ͘^ƚĂĨĨĐŽƵŶƚƉĞƌĚĂǇƚŽƚĂůƐĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϱϬǁŝƚŚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶĂĐƌŽƐƐ^ƵƌĨ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĨŽĐƵƐĞĚŽŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĨŚŽƵƐĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĂŶĚtĂǀĞKƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĨŽĐƵƐĞĚŽŶďĂĐŬŽĨŚŽƵƐĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ͘ +DUROG-3RUWLOOR 93:DYH3URMHFW'HVLJQ .HOO\6ODWHU:DYH&RPSDQ\ /D&LHQHJD3ODFH/RV$QJHOHV&$ 0 :ZZZNVZDYHFRFRP CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Wave Basin Areas Kelly Slater Wave Company Appendix M.1 January 2022 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Project: Coral Mtn. RFI Number: 104-005 Date RFI Submitted: 9/29/2020 Submitted By: Garrett Simon Date Response Required: 9/29/2020 Submitted To: Harold Portillo Date Responded: 9/29/2020 Plan Sheet No Detail: Attachments check one Yes No Datasheets Drawings Calculations REQUEST: As received in an email from Garrett on September 29: What is the current acreage of the (1) wave basin perimeter and (2) water area when stagnant? RESPONSE: See corresponding attachment RFI 104-005 Wave Basin Areas Analysis.pdf for graphic information : • Basin Footprint: 16.62 Acres (72,4210.69 sf) • Basin Perimeter: 5,741 ft • Water Body Footprint: 12.14 Acres (52,8711.86 sf) • Water Body Perimeter (Footprint): 5,516 ft • Water Body Perimeter (combined): 10,364 ft GENERAL NOTES: 1) General Information derived from 3d model: CoralMountain- OptionA_RoughGrading_20200806_x.3DM, which excludes some bathymetric features 2) Information included for Water metrics is preliminary during Concept Design phase and subject to change during Detailed Design phase By: Harold Portillo Signature: Date: 9/29/2020 After reviewing the response, does the vendor anticipate: That a change order will be required? Yes No If redesign required That there will be an increase in the cost of the project? Yes No If redesign required CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Kelly Slater Wave Company Responses Appendix M.2 January 2022 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Project: Coral Mtn. RFI Number: 104-015 Date RFI Submitted: 01/24/2022 Submitted By: John Gamlin Date Response Required: 01/26/2022 Submitted To: Harold Portillo Date Responded: 01/26/2022 Plan Sheet No Detail: Attachments check one Yes No Datasheets Drawings Calculations Per your request, here is the additional information for the following comments received via the Draft EIR: REQUEST / RESPONSE: Comment 42-g: Vibration/Seismic Activity: “I am also concerned about the constant vibrations caused by the waves due to the tremendous weight and force of 18 million gallons of water. I am only around 600 feet from the wave pool. All the seismic records were done at the wave pool at Lemoore California which has totally different soil composition. We are above the aquifer on sandy soil. So the developer has no idea of the impact of the wave motion to our area.” Response: The wave basin does not contribute to any measurable seismic activity. An Accelerometer test for seismic force during wave activity was conducted in Lemoore, CA on April 5th, 2021. To test for any measurable impact of force resulting from wave system operation, an accelerometer was placed on the concrete wall at the edge of the basin prior to and during wave operations. The accelerometer readings show no measurable change in readings during wave runs. The accelerometer readings vary by less than 0.0001g throughout the analysis, which suggests that any increase of force at the edge of the basin is for less than 0.0001g and therefore far more than an order of magnitude less than the minimum acceleration to reach the instrumental intensity associated with perceived shaking and more than 2 orders of magnitude less than the acceleration required to cause any potential damage. Based on this test measuring acceleration at the edge of the wave basin and verifying that there is no measurable acceleration, we can conclude that there is no measurable seismic activity caused by the wave system. Vibration spectrum analysis. Lemoore California, 14:19 April 5, 2021. Position on east wall approximately 10 feet north of the control tower. "ShakeMap Scientific Background. Rapid Instrumental Intensity Maps". Earthquake Hazards Program. U. S. Geological Survey. Archived from the original on 23 June 2011. Retrieved 22 March 2011. Comment 53-e: Water Use: “What happens when the pool repairs are needed and the pool has to be drained?” Response: The basin and wave system equipment are designed for a 20-year minimum service life without significant overhaul. The wave system design elevates all items that require regular maintenance to be located above the water line with maintenance platforms in place so that all routine maintenance and wear items are able to be maintained and replaced without removing water from the basin. Through these design efforts we’ve minimized any probability of need to drain the basin. In the unlikely event the basin does need to be fully drained, prior to the 20-year period described above, the water will be drained into the large retention basin on-site, which is unlined to allow percolation of the water into the ground. Comment 71-c: Noise: “Here is just one example- the Wave Basin requires an audible (not visual) 30- second alarm if there is an emergency, followed by another 30-second audible alarm to signal the emergency has ended. California State mandated Alarm can be as loud as it needs to be in order to be heard over “The Tub and The Train,” (nickname given to the Wave Basin by Kelly Slater’s peers), the screaming and cheering crowds, the crashing of waves onto concrete flooring, and the jet skis zipping up and down the Basin. As the Tub is geared for the Novice Surfer Tourist, the alarms could be going off several times a day. Response: There is no alarm system associated with the basin. Safety is maintained by controlling access to the site and the basin. Surfer safety is addressed with lifeguards and the rescue jet ski. Comment : Water temperature: “Also, water will be so hot during the summer months because it is only six feet deep at its maximum on a concrete pool.” Response: Water temperatures have been evaluated using similar open bodies of water in the Coachella Valley and our facility in Lemoore CA. Benchmarked data of similar open bodies of water demonstrate the cooling effect of natural geothermal cooling and the lower temperatures at night help maintain a water temperature significantly lower than ambient air temperature. Given the size of the Wave Basin and the movement of the water throughout the day, water temperatures are not anticipated to reach unsafe or uncomfortable levels, including during the hotter summer months, but the project will comply with all applicable State of California and County of Riverside health requirements to ensure the safety of surfers, and if water temperatures do become unsafe, the Wave Basin operations will be suspended until safe conditions are restored. Comment: Water Treatment: “This proposed development will require massive amounts of hazardous chemicals that will be used and stored on site (DEIR 4.8-18).” Response: We treat water through Filtration, UV treatment, and Chlorine treatment to maintain pH 7.2-7.8 and Free Available Chlorine 0.5 - 3.0 ppm. We use a media filtration system capable of filtering down to 2 microns. (See figures on next page for system information) By: Harold Portillo Signature: X Digital Signature Date: 01/26/2022 After reviewing the response, does the vendor anticipate: That a change order will be required? Yes No If redesign required That there will be an increase in the cost of the project? Yes No If redesign required CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Desert Recreation District Letter Letter of Agreement Appendix P January 2022