Club at Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR - Technical Appendices SCH# 2021020310 (Feb. 2022)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
L' J
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
FINAL EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Lighting Memo
Appendix B.1
January 2022
L' J
Dfparai c_ 1 CO 7 s7 Ave West PU 9na 808 Lk s esa Ih 82S77 8.11X13-9611 881A1525,6OF4 F,>.-. %PEW-S19C
wed>: 0 1 von Lorne! lig Minpgr11a6c0 corn
0000
MU
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
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.
Impact on Playability and Glare
Light Control
1977 1989 1989 1989 2005 Today
TIC for LED'
Today
Other LED
102,350 34,800 21,400 13,680 11,858 7
candela candela candela candela candela candela
141,145
candela
High
50000
Marginal
10000
Candela
Low
1000
Candela values {single fixture) reported from photometric reports at 15' above the beam center.
Photographed at 100ft (30 m] from field edge Used equal parameters for: On -field light level per pole, Mounting height, Luminaire aiming angles, and Pole Distance From aiming point.
None
5
Corrsarr,le 106 3 s7 hue 'Nem PD Baa SOO O¢szac.. IA 52577 £41.1573-9411 800..625-6029 F 866-1310.61 X
4V tFe: .,.... II IS(r) l'frr Err.nil IIgMIng Rlr.j O pons
0000
T
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 respectivecandela 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.
Ground level
HORIZON FROM FIXTURE MOUNT
— FIXTURE AIMING LINE
VISOR CUT OFF
POLE(S): P2
Musco SOFT Light -Structure System"' pole
Green Generationml luminaires
T.Newendorp
L.CIlhert
NTS
Corpoeale: 11):11-0 Ave West P6 Box WS 6a iasa. Ih §2511 &t 1AS1341411 81101325 -ED Fir Bfi M1-811
W el b, . ..-. •'nil tj ccgr. Emma ugrair rn. co Cam
0000
m
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.
Carpo+s1e 1D71s1.a•,=Wers1 P6 box COS 4a .a a Ih-52577 EA 1rE13-4411 801623-61324 F @6&11131:1-S1X
440b: ., .. -. 'nuSSO Gprrt 6i,4ddI Ii hlir G4m
0000
mu
Project Leadership: Musco
Non -Sports Engineering Manager- Musco: Matt Pearson
Team Member Since: 2008
bac kg round{Experien ce: Matt has a E.S. deg re -e in ABE Engineering from
Iowa State University and a member of the Iluminating Engineering Society. . He is
Lighting Certified and a Certified Measurement and Verification ProfessionaL He
hes been the lead lighting designer for hundreds of projects around the globe
including FIFA Stadiums, Collegiate Projects, Airport Aprons, Part Terminals, and
,architectural lighting projects.
Project Engineer - Musco: Tim Newendorp
Tearn Member Since: 20E4
Bac kg roup diExperi en ce: Tim has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Industrial
Management from William Penn University. His work experience at M usco includes;
+15 years of I ig Ming design, the installation and service of our products, and the
design and installation of numerous permanent lighting venues. He has been a read
lighting designer on multiple Olympics designs, Ports and International venues.
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
FINAL EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Musco Lighting Technical Memo
Appendix B.2
January 2022
L- J
KELLY
LATER
WAVE
COMPANY
TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM
PROJECT:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Coral Mountain Wave Project
Musco Lighting Test
January 26, 2022
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.
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.
Figure 1. Pole Locations on Property
Page 1
i❑
7.11
Figure 2. Test Pole Locations
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.
P16 LIGHT POLE
P8 LIGHT POLE
SALE I" = 30'
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.
Page 2
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 (Im)
Im = cd x (2Trsr)
Im = FC x Area in ft2
Im = Ix x Area in m2
1 Candela(cd)
cd = Im + (2Trsr)
cd = 0.09FC x m2/sr
cd = Ix x m2/sr
1 Foot -Candle (FC)
FC = 10.76 Im = Area in m2
FC = 10.76cd x sr/m2
FC = Ix x 10.76
1 Lux (Ix)
Ix = Im = Area in m2
Ix = cd x sr/m2
Ix = FC + 10.76
*sr = Steradians = solid angle of beam = 2Tr(1 - cos(ATr / 360)) where 0 is the beam angle in degrees
Table 1. Conversion table for lumen, candela, foot-candles, and lux.
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.
Page 3
a��
Figure 4. Single pole Light Plot
•
w
'z
••••-• AP
Figure 5. Full System Light Plots
Page 4
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.
(c)
1
J
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
100
90
60
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
90
Angle of Incident Light
Reflectance (%)
Figure 6. Reflectance value given light angle
(a)
MH
ii--- W -)rI S k --
Luminaire
Deck
Luminaire Mounting Height should be:
MH ? O.5(W+S)
Spacing<4xMH
Figure 7. Light angle of luminaire diagram
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.
Page 5
Figure 8. Photography of tests. Taken with 4 fixtures lit.
Page 6
Appendix A
REfJ 7,4CEJff 80711.....1 0£ r
VISOR OVERALL//AIMS MGM -)
i1R5 LIGhrr IS VERY LOW
ARCA. P1ARN.IYJG
AREA UNE
PROP. P[A[iNYJG AREA UNE �t
7].52'
15_.26
195:.5
1
REFLECTANCE OfF BOITOM OF
YISOR OVERALL15 FROM V
ImrSLIGHT 15 VERY LOw
T~ PROW. P[AINXNG AREA U C
SECTION 'A'
SCALE: r = 40'
SECTION 13'
SCALE: r = 40
159. W'
Page 7
Appendix B
11// 1,;20.-(
J { f 1,O'' G2 f rent a p T 17
3,0,k,L. c co -v
3D. x moo'
)0 0.00 0.00 0.40 4.00 0 341 o CO 0.40 GAO 0.116 11.440 0110 03n 0 08 040 0.00 11.04, 11 00 0.00 0.04 4.00 0.40 a ,13, Olio 0414 0.44
la n 10 0.00 006 0 00 0 nrl G 30 000 8.00 000 0.00 0.00 000 000 004 0.40 0.04 DSO n 0(1 000 0.00 0100 0140 090 0.00 0.00
111 Il 1111 6 101 006 0 00 000 000 0 CO 0 nn 4 00 0 00 0 40 0 CO 006 0.00 0.440 0130 a De 000 0.00 000 0 4%1 0 00 Mali aim 0 OG
FM 3.03 0 00 G 00 090 3.043 9.00 0.01 0171 0 110 040 0.00 0.113 046 44,00 000 911 0.31 099 0.00 000 000 ON 6.00 000 0 00
0,01 AOt QQ1 0,O1 6,},01 0.01 (j.1J1 0,0i 0,01
10 a 00 0 U12 n 317 0,00 0.01 0.01 0.02 3.413 943 0.0, 0.4)0 0,44 0.04 000 002 9.03 002 9.01 0.01 0 00 A 30 309 0.1x1 040 000
cc' 005 O.[ 0, b.v1 0.01 0101 o.05 0,05
O is 140 0.00 000 4)114 001 003 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.00 1 13 0.08 0.11 099 0.08 0.03 6.01 0.01 0414 0 410 0 413 17.00 0.041
in 10 ON [I p4 11.311 O (,11 O,,rr{ L,.C2 0,J73
la 1400 �.� b.i� l7�11
4.61 3 03 3.97 0.15 0.20 0.42 0.43 0.20 0.66 023 0.42 0.44 0.31 0.10 696 ON 0.01 390 000 0 00 0.00 0 00
5v t\yip a,kle 13-+ Q�7 Dna-- alis- an D,33
11 0 90 0 Ga 4101 0.432 0-01 11.20 0.41 191 1.59 2.01 1 sO 1
4133 J01 19B 111E 056 024 0.09 643 0 0 01}[1 ll 4,9 4,4711 44.00
b-9 0P__ UM_ 4 t11_w
..43S___n s7 L 3MG_. t _ to .- ,
r, r19r`g92A_ii 111032--O2.1--406--401-12.03_OOi_GO5--..101L.
O 000 0 al 001 699 033 1 13 2.08 n 3s 12 33 10.64 22. 1974 20.54 2121 15.90 7.39 344 144 943 0 12 002 9 00 000 000 0.00
6`r '- 1.AYe. 0 e:474
4 0.00 p 911 0 01 009 1138 1 18 2 77 5.65 12.61 20.09 22.33 2310 1187 21 48 14.10 367 3.24 1.43 0 49 G 13 0.47 31x1 3.06 n 410 000
t"1?. g , / 2.5-S Zy' 4,9
0 0.113 0.00 001 0.07 630 0 B3 191 ry.4.17 0.51 12.14 112.341 /1J5.90 1359 12.44[ 0.54 6.00 220 131 0.39 0.10 0.01 n On 0.00 a 00 0 044
5.
a 4.011 6.444 pM� 0 i&( ) Z J2 A {,
002 9.16 1144 1 11 245 433 5.50 6.10 762 6 48 367 470 2.87 137 058 024 0.41 000 2 00 0.140 1100 000
0 0.00 01x1 0.06 0 14 006 9.21 0.49 0.08 i 00 190 2 27 2.70 1.44 1 95 11 71 1 13 0.59 0.75 000 0171 000 0 4,r, 000 0.00 0110
0 g) 6,3 000 nOn 900 Ann 005 0.15 070 0.39 1148 050 467 0.62 0sa 042 028 11141 007 9000 4,011 4)31 0410 43 0+1 0.00 000
10
Measured 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
_ 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05
0.1 0.14 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.13 0.11
0.3 0.46 0.48 0.31 0.07 0.26 0.45 0.47 0.33
6.5 20.5 20.4 22 8.4
6.2 21.9 25.5 23 5.9
5 12.5 15.2 12.5 5.6
Software 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01
_ 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03
_ 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.02 0 0.01 0.08 0.11 0.09
_ 0.28 0.42 0.43 0.28 0.05 0.23 0.42 0.44 0.31
6.35 19.6 19.24 21.27 7.39
5.66 20.09 23.7 21.48 5.57
4.17 12.14 15.9 12.55 5
Page 8
Appendix C
•
/
TOE OF CORAL MOUNTAIN
Legend
P3
0.01 Foot Candle Extents
0.5 Foot Candle Extents
Pole Number / Location
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
FINAL EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Update Focused Bat Surveys
Appendix D.3
January 2022
LII J
LSA
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:
CARLSBAD
FRESNO
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
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"' 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.
20 Executive Park, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92614 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net
LSA
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"' 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»
2
LSA
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»
3
LSA
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»
4
LSA
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)
Status'
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»
5
LSA
Table A: Bat Species That Occur or May Occur in Study area
Species Name
(Scientific/Common)
Statusl
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»
6
LSA
Table A: Bat Species That Occur or May Occur in Study area
Species Name
(Scientific/Common)
Statusl
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»
7
LSA
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»
8
LSA
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»
9
LSA
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.
N
Jill Carpenter
Senior Biologist
Bat Specialist
Attachments: A: References
B: Figures: Figure 1: Locations of Suitable Roosting Habitat
Figure 2: Representative Site Photos
11/3/21«P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx»
10
RESULTS OF FOCUSED BAT SURVEYS WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT L S A
NOVEMBER 2021 LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT A
REFERENCES
P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx (11/03/21)
RESULTS OF FOCUSED BAT SURVEYS WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT C A
NOVEMBER 2021 LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA J �`
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.
A-1
P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx (11/03/21)
RESULTS OF FOCUSED BAT SURVEYS WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT C A
NOVEMBER 2021 LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA J �`
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 (Lasiurusxanthinus) 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. Eklof, and S. Sanchez -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.
A-2
P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx (11/03/21)
RESULTS OF FOCUSED BAT SURVEYS WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT L C A
NOVEMBER 2021 LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA J �\
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
(Lasiurusxanthinus). March 31—April 2, 2005. Portland, Oregon. Original account by B.C. Bolster,
1998.
A-3
P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx (11/03/21)
RESULTS OF FOCUSED BAT SURVEYS WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT L S A
NOVEMBER 2021 LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT B
FIGURES
P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx (11/03/21)
LSA
a
0 375 750
I
FEET
SOURCE: Nearmap (9/23/2020)
LEGEND
I I
Study Area
Suitable Roosting Habitat Locations
EJRock Crevice/Cave Roost 0 Potential Tree Roost (Eucalyptus Snag)
• Potential Tree Roost (Palm Tree)
• Potential Tree Roost (Palo Verde)
0 Potential Tree Roost (Snag)
FIGURE 1
The Wave at Coral Mountain
Focused Bat Surveys
Locations of Suitable Roosting Habitat
I:\CWV1901\GIS\MXD\Bio\SuitableBatRoostingHab.mxd (5/3/2021)
RESULTS OF FOCUSED BAT SURVEYS
MAY 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT L C A
LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA J
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.
B-2
\\vcorpl2\projects\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_AprilBatSurveys.docx (05/06/21)
RESULTS OF FOCUSED BAT SURVEYS
NOVEMBER 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT L C A
LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA J �`
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.
B-2
P:\CWV1901\CoralMountainWave_MaternityBatSurveys.docx (11/03/21)
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
FINAL EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Update Biological Resources
Assessment and CVMSHCP
Consistency Analysis
Appendix D.4
January 2022
LII J
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
CORAL MOUNTAIN SPECIFIC PLAN
CITY OF LA QUINTA
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
LSA
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
LSA
May November 2021
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J ``\
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 s ason 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 arca and to bather more precise data on numbers and species of bats in roosts identified
during thc 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 arc identified within the project ar a, the biologist will coordinate with thc 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 m asures, impacts to roosting bats will be Icss than significant.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City \ Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/2211-1084144/43/-24)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J ``\
and acoustic surveys for roosting bats. If maternity roosts or hibcrnacula arc found, the biologist will
coordinate with CDFW to implement avoidance m asures where possible. If avoidance of the
roost(s) is not f osible, the biologist will prepare a site specific bat avoidance and miti_ation plan
and coordinate with CDFW. This avoidance and miti_ation plan would include miti_ation strategics
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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) II
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBERAA-P-'2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDCVCL f MCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J ``\
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures
Appendices
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
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx(02/28/22110 21) 111
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOYMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J `(`
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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) 1
•
P1
29R
Pie.
a
. 1z s.i▪ ¢...■.
29
A VENUE
r 4
4
1
r
4
4f
AveNuE
+ :JT
• r
.###* 28 i
.1 Lake
tbul Pre
R
it
■ •P ▪ 4p�
titi a r
✓
■i
Imamerl—m-±
a
Project Vicinity
1,4
Riverside
County
33
7
• 34
Scrnrmrnl PpQ
•
'eM —40PUrnelne -62
LSA
0 1000 2000
FEET
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad., La Quinta, CA (1980); Indio, CA (1972); Martinez Mtn, CA (1988); Valerie, CA (1972)
LEGEND
I I
Study Area
FIGURE 1
The Wave at Coral Mountain
Regional and Project Location Map
I:\CWV1901\GIS\MXD\Project_Location.mxd (10/9/2019)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J `(`
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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) 3
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J `(`
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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) 4
7,I ti- `" , .• �• • er,.'•
101
8€
LSA
0
375 750
FEET
SOURCE: Bing Aerial (09/2017)
LEGEND
Study Area
aPhoto Locations
Vegetation
Desert Saltbush Scrub
- Disturbed
Mesquite Hummock
Paloverde Stand
Tamarisk Scrub
FIGURE 2
The Wave at Coral Mountain
Vegetation, Land Use, and
Photograph Key Location Map
I:\CWV1901\GIS\MXD\Vegetation_and_Photo_Key.mxd (10/9/2019)
Photo 1. View of desert saltbush scrub as seen facing south. Photo 2. View of the proposed project site as seen facing
southeast.
Photo 3. View of an access road as seen facing north. Photo 4. View of desert saltbush scrub as seen facing
northwest.
LSA
FIGURE 3
Sheet 1 of 2
The Wave at Coral Mountain
Site Photographs
I:\CWV1901\G\Site_Photos.cdr (10/9/2019)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J `(`
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 abovei
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);
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) 7
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J `(`
• 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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) 8
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBERWAY 2021
WAVC AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDCVCLOPMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J `(`
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 43special-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 prc construction burrowing owl survey would be
required using an accepted protocol (as determined by thc Coachella Valley Conservation
Commission in coordination with thc permittees and thc wildlife agencies). Prior to construction, a
qualified biologist will survey the construction area and; an areaas fusible, up to a 500 fee -feet
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City \Appendix\D.4 - Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docxP:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1001_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/2211,44841-144-0-3/-24) 9
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBERWAY 2021
WAVC AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDCVCLOPMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J `(`
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 s anon 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 no#
occupied maternity roosts were -re identified within the project ar afootprint, 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, nI o 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
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City \Appendix\D.4 - Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docxn:\CWV1901\BRA \May
2021\CWV1001_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/22^' ^'0gin) 10
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
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 cl arancc 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 prc construction survey is required to use accepted protocol (as determined
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
burrow on site during the past three y ars. If there arc no records for the site, surveys must be
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4 - Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docxP:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) 11
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J ``\
conducted to determine, prior to construction, if burrowing owls arc present. Determination of the
appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall bo
based on thc specific site conditions (e.g., distance to n orest 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.lf 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 thc rock outcrops where occupied bat roosts were
identified during thc 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 trespassovcrspill 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
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City \ Appendix \D.4 - Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docxP:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) 12
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBERWAY 2021
WAVC AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDCVCLOPMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J `(`
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 proposcd 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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City \Appendix\D.4 - Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docxn:\CWV1001\BRA \May
2021\CWV1001_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/22^' ^'0gin) 13
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBERWAY 2021
WAVC AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOPMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J `(`
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
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City \Appendix\D.4 - Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docxn:\CWV1001\BRA \May
2021\CWV1001_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/22^' ^'0gin) 14
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER{ -P-'2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVEL f MENT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J ``\
APPENDIX A
PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx Mw
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1408414443/-24)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBERM-R-Y 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVELOTMENT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J ``\
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
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docxP:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) A-1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBERM-R-Y 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVELOTMENT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J ``\
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
MAMMALSBIR4DS
TytenitaeVespertilionidae
Evening BatsBarn Owk
Antrozous pallidus
Pallid batBarn owl
Eptesicus fuscus
Big brown bat
Lasiurus xanthinus
Western yellow bat
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) A-2
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVELOf MENT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J ``\
Myotis californicus
California myotis
Tyrannidae
Tyrant Flycatchers
Myiarchus
Ash throated
cincrascensMyotis
ciliolabrum
flycatchcrWestern small -
footed myotis
Parastrellus hesperus
Canyon bat
idaeMolossidae
Pigcons and DeverFree-
tailed Bats
Zenaida
Western mastiff bat
macrouraEumops perotis
californicus
Capr•mulg•dae
6ea ers
Nyctinomops femorosaccus
Pocketed free -tailed bat
Chordeilcs
Lesser
acutipcnnisTadarida
brasiliensis mexicana
nighthawkMexican
free -tailed bat
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx(02/28/2211/0 21) A-3
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBERM-A 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVELOTMENT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA J ``\
APPENDIX B
SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES SUMMARY
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City \ Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx Mw
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1408414443/-24)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix\D.4 - Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_O50621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144-143/-24) B-1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144-143/-24) B-2
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVELOf MENT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx(02/28/2211/0 21) B-3
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTUEVELOf MENT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-108n) B-4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTUEVELOf MENT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
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
(Larrey 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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx(02/28/2211/0 21) B-5
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVELOf MENT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx(02/28/2211/0 21) B-6
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
Special -Status Species Summary
Species
Status
Habitat and Distribution
Activity Period
Occurrence Probability
Pyrocephalus
US: —
A rare, local, year-long resident
Fall or winter
Absent. Suitable habitat
rubinus
(nesting)
Vermilion
flycatcher
CA: SSC
(breeding)
along the Colorado River,
especially in vicinity of Blythe,
Riverside County. Sporadic
breeder in desert oases west and
north to Morongo Valley and the
visitor or rare
and local
breeder
(desert oases) is not
present within the study
area.
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.
Toxostoma crissale
US: —
Dense thickets of shrubs or low
Year-round
Low. Suitable habitat
CA: SSC
trees in desert riparian and
(Dense thickets of
Crissal thrasher
(year round)
desert wash habitats.
shrubs) is present within
CVMSHCP: C
Southeastern California to Texas
and northern Mexico.
the study area.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) B-7
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBERM-R-Y 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVELOTMENT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
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
ca/ifornicus
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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) B-8
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVELOf MENT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
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
US: —
Roosts singly or in small groups
Year-round;
Detected. Suitable rock
Western small-
CA: SA
in cliff and rock crevices, caves,
nocturnal
outcrops present for day
mines, culverts, and buildings.
roosting. Forages in
footed myotis
Forages on small insects over
study area.
desert, scrub, chaparral, and
riparian habitats.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx(02/28/2211/0 21) B-9
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144-143/-24) B-10
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER* 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTUEVCLOTMCNT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
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.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) B-11
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NOVEMBERM-R-Y 2021
WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTDEVELOTMENT PROJECT L C A
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA J ``\
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 California Fully Protected. Refers to animals protected from take under Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and
P 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
Species is adequately conserved under the CVMSHCP.
R:\2553\Departments\Environmental\Final EIR\2022-02-07 Submittal to City\Appendix \D.4- Revised Biological Report LSA 2021-11-08.docx7:\CWV1001\BRA\May
2021\CWV1901_BRA_050621_rcviscd.docx (02/28/221-1-1084144/43/-24) B-12
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
FINAL EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Biological Resources Assessment
ELMT Consulting
Appendix D.5
January 2022
LII
v
November 3, 2021
CORAL MOUNTAIN
Attention: John Gamlin
I\/
FV1 CONSULTING
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.
2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 1 Santa Ana, CA 92711-00981 (714) 716-5050
www.ELMTConsulting.com
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)
kJ,* ELMT�
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
kJ,*EL�MT
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,
c91/iif,/ -/
Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D.
Managing Director
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: CVMSHCP Conservation Areas
Exhibit 2: Sheep Protection Plan
kJ,* ELMT�
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area
0o E SVT
❑�❑� CONSULTINC
A 0
0.5 1 2
i Miles
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, CVMSHCP, Riverside County
CORAL MOUNTAIN
CVMSHCP Conservation Areas
Exhibit 3
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN
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.
35
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN
Legend:
Project Boundary
— — — —
Proposed 6' CMU Community Perimeter Wall
Proposed 8' Sheep Barrier
• •
Alternative Barrier Alignment
Restricted Plant Palette
Additional Restricted Plant Palette
For Alternative Barrier Alignment
Notes:
1. Information shown is conceptual only.
Final alignment may be adjusted to
accommodate ground features and
other design and/or environmental
considerations.
AVENUE 58
0
N
25' MIN. WIDTH
OPTIONAL GATE
2. Perimeter Wall & Sheep Barrier as
approved by City of La Quinta.
3. Sheep barrier to consist of 8' high fencing
as shown in approved CVCC "PBS Barrier
Project" (see Figure XX) or equivalent
combination of 6' CMU and 2' decorative
wrought iron or tubular steel view fence
as appropriate.
4. See Table 3 of Section 4.4.3 for plant
restrictions.
AVENUE 60
Source: MSA Consulting, Inc.
Exhibit Date: November 30, 2027
MSA NSULTING, INC.
PLANNING -CIVIL ENGINEERING >LAND SURVEYING
MSACONSULTINGINC.COM
CONCEPTUAL PBS BARRIER PLAN
FIGURE 13
PAGE 36
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN
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 Mulga
Acacia salicina* Native Willow*
Acacia saligna* Blue Leaf Wattle*
Acacia smalli* Desert Sweet Acacia*
Acacia stenophylla* Shoestring Acacia*
Albizia julibrissin Mimosa Tree
Bauhinia purpurea Purple Orchid Tree
Brahea armata Mexican Blue
Brachychiton populneus Palm Bottle Tree
Caesalpinia cacalaco Cascalote
Callistemon viminalis Bottlebrush Tree
Cercidium floridum Blue Palo Verde
Cercidium hybrid Desert Museum
Cercidium praecox Palo Brea
Chamerops humilis Med. Fan Palm
Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow
Chitalpa tashkentenis Chitalpa
Chorisia linearis Desert Willow
Chorisia speciosa Silk Floss Tree
96
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN
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
Kid neywood
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*
97
SHRUBS
GROUND -
COVER
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN
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
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
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.
Prostrate Acacia*
Centennial Coyote Brush
Bougainvillea
Trailing Indigo Bush
New Gold Lantana
Purple Trailing Lantana
Prostrate Myoporum
Firethorn
Creeping Rosemary
Turf
Verbena
98
VINES
ACCENTS
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN
Antigonon leptopus
Bougainvillea species
Clytostoma callistegioides
Ficus pumila
Macfadyena unguis-cati
Rosa banksiae
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
Coral Vine
'Barbara Karst'
Violet Trumpet Vine
Creeping Fig
Cat's Claw Creeper
Lady Bank's Rose
Century Plan
Desert Agave
Agave
Parry's Agave
Queen Victoria Agave
Aloe Vera
Desert Spoon
Golden Barrel Cactus
Common Blue Fescue
Ocotillo
Red Yucca
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.
99
[',i CO
L
UT
SULTI
NG
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.
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
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 Barin 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
"Responsible Planning Through Environmental Leadership"
Tom McGill
Page 1
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
Tom McGill
Page 2
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.
Tom McGill
Page 3
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.
Tom McGill
Page 4
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
FINAL EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Noise Memo
Urban Crossroads
Appendix K.3
January 2022
L' J
i�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
urbanxroads.com
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.
12642-14 Noise Memo
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
September 9, 2021
Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT A: SURF RANCH NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
LEGEND:
Q Measurement Locations
12642-14 Noise Memo
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
September 9, 2021
Page 3 of 4
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
Locations
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.
12642-14 Noise Memo
,► URBAN
CR055ROAD5
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
September 9, 2021
Page 4 of 4
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 Leq.
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal
9,00 ESSio,
C7
w 3
uc40 ON Am
4.441
No. TR 2537
`T TRAFFIC
4'OF CALIF'
z
12642-14 Noise Memo
,► URBAN
CR055ROADS
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
FINAL EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix L.1
January 2022
LII
��► URBAN
CROSSROADS
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
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
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
iv
e URBAN
CRC/SSR DADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
V
Cr1 URBAN
CROSS ROaEIS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 1.1:
APPENDIX 3.1:
APPENDIX 3.2:
APPENDIX 3.3:
APPENDIX 6.1:
APPENDIX 6.2:
APPENDIX 6.3:
APPENDIX 6.
APPENDIX 6.
APPENDIX 6
APPENDIX 6
APPENDIX 6
APPENDIX 6
APPENDIX 6
APPENDIX 7
APPENDIX 7
APPENDIX 7
APPENDIX 7
APPENDIX 8
APPENDICES
APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
E+P CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
E+P CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
EA WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
4: EA WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
5: EAC (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
PHASE 1 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
.6: EAC (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
PHASE 1 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
.7: EAC (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
PHASE 2 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
.8: EAC (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
PHASE 2 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
.9: EAC (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT BUILDOUT PHASE 3 CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND
PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
.10: EAC (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT BUILDOUT PHASE 3 CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
.1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
.2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
.3: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND
PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
.4: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
.1: EAPC PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND
PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
VI
��► URBAN
CROSS ROan5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
VII
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
VIII
(�► URBAN
CROSS ROan5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
ix
I�1 URBAN
CROSS ROaEIS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
X
��► URBAN
CROSS ROaEIS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
xi
I�1 URBAN
CROSS ROaEIS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
XII
e URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
XIII
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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 2-413, 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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
( URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 1-1: PRELIMINARY LAND USE PLAN
' AVENUE 58 -
1
_I -
RI' I.
Low Density Residential
a -,» I ±94 DU
"Low Density Residential_= — s'L`,
oma ±26 DU
"-
.HE ET MATCH NNE
SEE SHEET Na. 2
.161
11 I
. ate,"
r
. , .
Low Density ResidentialA
±118 DU
The Farm-
-. `. Village_
Yl
.Wy
041101
" ° PROJECT
-..- ua—accass3.
Commercial
I
Low Density Residential
. ..,.K,C..±136 DU : ;
Ii
I'
-- The Farm:
•
. The Wave
os
SEE Hotels' ON
(150 Keyes)
•
,I
urie-
Na -- AVENUE 80
Low Density Residential,M - ...
±122 DU fWA -IV
CAME COHCHRA —
LA
WEU
12615 - 01 - study area.dwg
2
C!" CROSSROADS
URBAN
i/
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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)
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
( URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
The Wave - Coral Mountain
JEFFERSON ST.
EXHIBIT 1-2: LOCATION MAP
AVENUE 50 50TH AV.
'POMELO
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Q�4
SITE) jQ
`v ter
v t
S. ACCESS
z
0
0
"SEE INSET"
AVENUE 52
AVENUE 54
AIRPORT BL.
n
MONROE ST.
58TH AV. 3
INSET
v,
0
0
AVENUE 58
I4
l
ou
c a IPROJECESCT
ACS 3 � I
I ---Zi
SITE 1 I /
\ MAIN ,
ACCESS 18
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
— J
AVENUE 60 5I60TH AV.
7 ob
JACKSON ST.
LEGEND:
= EXISTING ANALYSIS LOCATION
05 = FUTURE ANALYSIS LOCATION
(3000 = ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATION
---- = FUTURE ROADWAY / DIRT
�6® = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 01 - study area.dwg
4
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
0 URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
0 URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
0 URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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 Tablesl-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 • #11— Monroe Street at Avenue 60
• #3 - Madison Street at Avenue 54. • #12 — Monroe Street at Avenue 58
• #6 - Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 • #13 — Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard
• #7 - Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 • #14 - Monroe Street at Avenue 54
• #9 - Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 • #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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
( URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 1-4: SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control'
Existing (2019)
E+P
Potentially Significant
Project Specific
Impact'
Delay secs)1
Level of Service'
Delay secs)1
Level of Service'
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Madison St. / Avenue 58
AWS
8.5
9.3
A
A
10.0
12.8
A
B
No
2
Madison St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
8.8
8.4
A
A
8.8
9.9
A
A
No
3
Madison St. / Avenue 54
AWS
12.9
15.9
B
C
15.2
23.5
C
C
No
4
Madison St. / Avenue 52
TS
27.9
28.5
C
C
29.1
30.0
C
C
No
5
Madison 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
Future Intersection
8.9
8.9
A
A
No
19
Madison St. / Main Access
CSS
Future Intersection
12.7
15.6
B
C
No
20
Project Access 1 / Avenue 58
CSS
Future Intersection
9.2
9.8
A
A
No
21
Project Access 2 / Avenue 58
CSS
Future Intersection
8.6
9.0
A
A
No
22
Madison St. / Project Access 3
CSS
Future Intersection
8.9
10.1
A
B
No
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 movement 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 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.
R: \UXRjobsL12600-13000\126151 Excell [12615 - Report.xls41-4
8
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 1-5: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control'
PHASE 1 (2021)
PHASE 2 (2023)
PHASE 3 (2026)
Potentially
Significant
Cumulative
Impact3
Without Project
With Project
Without Project
With Project
Without Project
With Project
Delay'.
LOS'
Delay 1
LOST
Delay'.
LOST
Delay 1
LOST
Delay 1
LOS'.
Delay secs)1
LOST
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
1 AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Madison 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
1 12.7
20.8
B
C
17.3
57.9
C
F
- With Improvements
TS
27.4
32.1
C
C
No
2
Madison 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
No
3
Madison St. / Avenue 54
AWS
21.3
47.6
C
E
22.6
53.0
C
F
33.9
>80
D
F
36.9
>80
E
F
79.2
>80
F
F
>80
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
31.4
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
No
4
Madison 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
No
5
Madison 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
No
6
Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
AWS
18.8
49.7
C
E
19.3
52.1
C
F
24.1
79.4
C
F
25.2
>80
D
F
40.6
>80
E
F
54.2
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
36.1
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
No
7
Jefferson St. / Avenue 52
RDB
42.8
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
No
8
Jefferson St. / Pomelo
TS
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
No
9
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
52.4
58.8
D
E
53.0
60.3
D
E
- With Improvements
51.4
51.0
D
D
51.8
51.6
D
D
No
10
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
No
11
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
25.9
76.4
D
F
30.9
>80
D
F
- With Improvements
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33.3
34.9
C
C
34.4
37.7
C
D
No
12
Monroe St. / Avenue 58
AWS
10.8
23.8
B
C
11.0
26.8
B
D
15.7
>80
C
F
16.4
>80
C
F
52.2
>80
F
F
>80
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.3
21.7
B
C
18.1
22.9
B
C
23.2
33.3
C
C
25.9
38.1
C
D
No
13
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
D
47.3
>80
E
F
70.4
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
24.0
24.9
C
C
24.6
25.8
C
C
No
14
Monroe St. / Avenue 54
AWS
31.1
35.7
D
E
33.0
35.9
D
E
>80
>80
F
F
>80
>80
F
F
>80
>80
F
F
>80
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
23.5
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
No
15
Monroe St. / Avenue 52
AWS
50.3
>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 Improvements
TS
13.0
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
No
16
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
No
17
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
No
18
S. Access / Avenue 60
CSS
Future Intersection
8.6
8.6
A
A
Future Inte section
8.6
8.6
A
A
Future Intersection
8.9
8.9
A
A
No
19
Madison St. / Main Access
CSS
Future Intersection
11.2
12.6
B
B
Future Intersection
11.5
13.5
B
B
Future Intersection
17.4
24.3
C
C
No
20
Project Access 1 / Avenue 58
CSS
Future Intersection
9.9
10.6
A
B
Future Intersection
10.1
10.9
B
B
Future Intersection
10.2
11.1
B
B
No
21
Project Access 2 / Avenue 58
CSS
Future Intersection
9.3
9.8
A
A
Future Intersection
9.3
9.9
A
A
Future Intersection
9.4
10.0
A
B
No
22
Madison St. / Project Access 3
CSS
Future Intersection
9.0
9.7
A
A
Future Intersection
9.1
9.9
A
A
Future Intersection
9.6
11.3
A
B
No
Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersec ion 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).
CSS = Cross -street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All -way Stop; RDB = Roundabout; 1= Improvement
3 A 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.
R:IUXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Excel\j12615- ReporGxlsx]2-5
9
C!!° CROSSROADS
URBAN
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 1-6: SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control'
Without Project
With Project
Delay (Secs)1
Level of Service'
Delay (Secs)1
Level of Service'
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Madison St. / Avenue 58
- With GPCE Update Improvements
- With Modified GPCE Improvements
TS
TS
40.1
34.5
63.2
45.5
D
C
E
D
41.5
35.1
70.3
53.0
D
D
E
D
2
Madison St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
23.2
28.6
C
C
23.7
29.7
C
C
3
Madison St. / Avenue 54
TS
42.9
49.0
D
D
44.2
53.3
D
D
4
Madison St. / Avenue 52
TS
38.8
52.0
D
D
39.5
53.8
D
D
5
Madison 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
- With Added GPCE Improvements
TS
TS
45.1
36.7
98.8
50.3
D
D
F
D
46.1
37.2
103.9
53.0
D
D
F
D
12
Monroe St. / Avenue 58
- With GPCE Update Improvements
- With Added GPCE Improvements
TS
TS
47.8
38.0
72.0
48.6
D
D
E
D
50.1
39.5
75.9
52.0
D
D
E
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
- With Traffic Signal
CSS
TS
Future Intersection
113.2
7.6
91.7
9.0
F
A
F
A
20
Project Access 1 / Avenue 58
CSS
Future Intersection
12.9
14.5
B
B
21
Project Access 2 / Avenue 58
CSS
Future Intersection
10.2
10.4
B
B
22
Madison St. / Project Access 3
CSS
Future Intersection
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: \ UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Excel\[12615 - Report.x1sx]1-6
10
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 1-7: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Roadway
Roadway
Designation
# of
Lanes'
Existing
Capacity'
Existing
(2019)
E+P
Potentially
Significant
Project
Specific
Impact'
PHASE 3 (2026)
Potentially
Significant
Cumulative
Impact3
# of
Lanes'
2040
Capacity'
GPBO (2040)
Without Project
With Project
Without Project
With Project
ADT3
V/C
ADT3
V/C
ADT3
V/C
ADT3
V/C
ADT3
V/C
ADT3
V/C
Avenue 58
West of Madison St.
Secondary
3
21,000 °
1,600
0.08
2,300
0.11
No
5,700
0.27
6,300
0.30
No
4
28,000
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 °
1,800
0.13
2,700
0.19
No
4,900
0.35
5,700
0.41
No
4
28,000
18,200
0.65
19,000
0.68
Madison St.
South of Airport BI.
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 °
3,200
0.15
4,500
0.21
No
6,900
0.33
8,200
0.39
No
4
28,000
22,700
0.81
24,000
0.86
Monroe St.
South of Airport BI.
Primary
3
31,950 5
3,400
0.11
4,400
0.14
No
12,100
0.38
13,100
0.41
No
4
42,600
24,900
0.58
26,000
0.61
'These maximum roadway capacities have been extracted from the City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (October 2017).
These roadway capacities are "rule of thumb" estimates for planning purposes. The LOS E service volumes are estimated maximum daily capacity for respective classifications. Capacity is affected by such factors as intersections (spacing,
configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
2 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
3A 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.
° Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Secondary capacity.
'Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Primary capacity.
1= Existing number of lanes; 1= City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes
R: \UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Excel \(11615 - Report.xls4l-7
11
C?:' CROSSROADS
URBAN
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 1-3 (1 OF 6): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS BY PHASE
1 MADISON ST. &
AVENUE 58
2 MADISON ST. &
AIRPORT BLVD.
3 MADISON ST. &
AVENUE 54
4 MADISON ST. &
AVENUE 52
5 MADISON ST. &
AVENUE 50
6 JEFFERSON ST. &
AVENUE 54
7 JEFFERSON ST. &
AVENUE 52
8 JEFFERSON ST. &
POMELO
u.u.L
J i i L.�
4_
*1 �4-'
� �
i
4_
�
1
_1** �_ �
�l i i l►I;
4_
j
.1** ��
4 T is
7
I
' i T
i
...,,
WITHOUT PROJECT
EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS
.. ,.-
c
DEF t
O
DEF —L
i
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
�*-
4_
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
LL
t-
�I���
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITHOUT PROJECT
EXISTING+AMBIENT (2026) CONDITIONS
DEF —4
n ff 7
i
} t'
'I
}ffrr
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS EA (2026)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS EA (2026)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS EA (2026)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
LEGEND:
c
0
0
= INTERSECTION ID
= EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= CITY CIP TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= EXISTING ROUNDABOUT
= PROJECT ROUNDABOUT
4— = EXISTING LANE
Q = LANE IMPROVEMENT
(CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012)
= ADDITIONAL LANE IMPROVEMENT
4111,/111
= PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT
= FREE RIGHT TURN
DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE
RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP
Rro = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT
(CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012)
= ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN OVERLAP
IMPROVEMENT (GPA OPTION 1)
* = LEFT TURN LANE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN
TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE STRIPED MEDIAN
12615 - 05 - improvements.dwg
12
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 1-3 (2 OF 6): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS BY PHASE
1 MADISON ST. &
AVENUE 58
2 MADISON ST. &
AIRPORT BLVD.
3 MADISON ST. &
AVENUE 54
4 MADISON ST. &
AVENUE 52
5 MADISON ST. &
AVENUE 50
6 JEFFERSON
ST. &
AVENUE 54
7 JEFFERSON ST. &
AVENUE 52
8 JEFFERSON ST. &
POMELO
NOIMPROVEMENTS
IMPROVEMENTS
L
t-
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
J 11 LJ�
1
JI -41,1-*-
it-
.}���
`I
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITHOUT PROJECT
PHASE 1 (2021) CONDITIONS
-4
DEF —*
7 11 ��
_4
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE
WITHOUT
IMPROVEMENTS
1 (2021)
PROJECT
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE
WITHOUT
IMPROVEMENTS
1 (2021)
PROJECT
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITHOUT PROJECT
PHASE 2 (2023) CONDITIONS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE
WITHOUT
IMPROVEMENTS
1 (2021)
PROJECT
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTSl'i6
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
II
J ++�
A R70
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITHOUT PROJECT
Z
0
r
o
z
O
.o
N
O
IN
vl
=
a
�►
�►
C
J 11 Log—
4
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE
WITHOUT
IMPROVEMENTS
3 (2026)
PROJECT
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
-
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
��
J 11 1'
4—MI
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
J�v.
LM
4 11 I.I_,t-
L
J ! 1 I..�-
ro
J 11 Wt-
4_ C)
JI��/1."
GG�
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITHOUT PROJECT
2040 CONDITIONS
(RESTRIPE) J
SAME AS
WITHOUT
IMPROVEMENTS
}}
2040
PROJECT
SAME AS
WITHOUT
IMPROVEMENTS
117
2040
PROJECT
y
DEF
SAME AS
WITHOUT
IMPROVEMENTS
fl t t 7
2040
PROJECT
y
SAME AS
WITHOUT
IMPROVEMENTS
fl t tt_714't
L
2040
PROJECT
SAME AS
WITHOUT
IMPROVEMENTS
f e
2040
PROJECT
��1���►�
1
SAME AS
WITHOUT
IMPROVEMENTS
__
2040
PROJECT
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
12615 - 05 - improvements.dwg
13
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 1-3 (3 OF 6): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS BY PHASE
9 JEFFERSON ST. &
AVENUE 50
10 MADISON &
AVENUE 60
1 1 MONROE ST. &
AVENUE 60
12 MONROE ST. &
AVENUE 58
13 MONROE ST. &
AIRPORT BLVD.
14 MONROE ST. &
AVENUE 54
15 MONROE ST. &
AVENUE 52
16 MONROE ST. &
50TH AVENUE
J.ll��
A
�
j
•
�-
�
5)
f-
J 1-+
�-+
u.
J ..
�sff
±
f-
J 1-+
_4+
l Lo
_44.
4— DEF
�
:. ����'
—47ff-
RTO
WITHOUT PROJECT
EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS
i
�-
1S
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
_
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
J
+
-, i L
4— DEF
*—
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITHOUT PROJECT
EXISTING+AMBIENT (2026) CONDITIONS
_4.
i
_4.
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
j
±
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS EA (2026)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS EA (2026)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
LEGEND:
0
0
= INTERSECTION ID
= EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= CITY CIP TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= EXISTING ROUNDABOUT
= PROJECT ROUNDABOUT
4— = EXISTING LANE
= LANE IMPROVEMENT
(CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012)
L = ADDITIONAL LANE IMPROVEMENT
= PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT
= FREE RIGHT TURN
DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE
RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP
r" -M, = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT
(CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012)
= ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN OVERLAP
IMPROVEMENT (GPA OPTION 1)
* = LEFT TURN LANE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN
TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE STRIPED MEDIAN
12615 - 05 - improvements.dwg
14
URBAN
CROSSROAIDS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 1-3 (4 OF 6): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS BY PHASE
9 JEFFERSON ST. &
AVENUE 50
10 MADISON &
AVENUE 60
1 1 MONROE ST. &
AVENUE 60
12 MONROE ST. &
AVENUE 58
13 MONROE ST. &
AIRPORT BLVD.
14 MONROE ST. &
AVENUE 54
15 MONROE ST. &
AVENUE 52
16 MONROE ST. &
50TH AVENUE
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
4...44
4
4- DEF
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITHOUT PROJECT
PHASE 1 (2021) CONDITIONS
_4
i
4-
_��
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
j+
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITHOUT PROJECT
PHASE 2 (2023) CONDITIONS
+
}_
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 2 (2023)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
II+—
.41J.
4-
a
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
ILai+
a
e
u.
o
,�+
d
-.4%,,6=
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUTPROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS ENTS
WITHOUT PROJECT
PHASE 3 (2026) CONDITIONS
—*1
_
fffi'
}'
J�41
i
—'t'
-4-'
f►
SAME AS PHASE 3 (2026)NO
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 3 (2026)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 3 (2026)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 3 (2026)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 3 (2026)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
J111L
a4-
�4 La
�alL
aro
-
slab
�11L
aro
��a
CI
La
ilLa
a RTO
WITHOUT PROJECT
2040 CONDITIONS
=•��4
•7fffI'
���
�_��f�
GI) —,
��'1�f4�r
0
�_��4f-
(RESTRIPE)5
��`�f4�'
��`��f4�r'
[>
�it—
E�
SAME AS 2040
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS 2040
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS 2040
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS 2040
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS 2040
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS 2040
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS 2040
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS 2040
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
12615 - 05 - improvements.dwg
15
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 1-3 (5 OF 6): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS BY PHASE
17 JACKSON ST. &
58TH AVENUE
18 S. ACCESS &
AVENUE 60
19 MADISON ST. &
MAIN ACCESS
20 PROJECT ACCESS 1 &
AVENUE 58
21 PROJECT ACCESS 2 &
AVENUE 58
22 MADISON ST. &
PROJECT ACCESS 3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
WITHOUT PROJECT
EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS
±M
NO
IMPROVEMENTS=9.
T ot;
-"t i
t *
�v
WITH PROJECT
�►
di
e
-f."
e. i
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
WITHOUT PROJECT
EXISTING+AMBIENT (2026) CONDITIONS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
LEGEND:
0
0
= INTERSECTION ID
= EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= CITY CIP TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= EXISTING ROUNDABOUT
= PROJECT ROUNDABOUT
4— = EXISTING LANE
Q = LANE IMPROVEMENT
(CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012)
= ADDITIONAL LANE IMPROVEMENT
= PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT
= FREE RIGHT TURN
DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE
RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP
Rro = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT
(CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012)
= ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN OVERLAP
IMPROVEMENT (GPA OPTION 1)
* = LEFT TURN LANE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN
TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE STRIPED MEDIAN
12615 - 05 - improvements.dwg
16
URBAN
CROSSROADS
EXHIBIT 1-3 (6 OF 6): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS BY PHASE
17 JACKSON ST. &
58TH AVENUE
18 S. ACCESS &
AVENUE 60
19 MADISON ST. &
MAIN ACCESS
20 PROJECT ACCESS 1 &
AVENUE 58
21 PROJECT ACCESS 2 &
AVENUE 58
22 MADISON ST. &
PROJECT ACCESS 3
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
WITHOUT PROJECT
PHASE 1 (2021) CONDITIONS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
8f!
i
41 t t
i *
V
-i
1 1
I.
WITH PROJECT
j,
I.
e
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
WITHOUT PROJECT
PHASE 2 (2023) CONDITIONS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITH PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITH PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITH PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITH PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITH PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
WITHOUT PROJECT
PHASE 3 (2026) CONDITIONS
NO
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITH PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITH PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITH PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITH PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITH PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
�%pi
i'('
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
WITHOUT PROJECT
2040 CONDITIONS
9.2
}5?,
IUJIL�''
SAME AS 2040
WITHOUT PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
WITH PROJECTWITH
IMPROVEMENTS
1
1 }II }
i—*
SAME AS PHASE 1 (2021)
PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH PROJECT
_a'�'
The Wave - Coral Mountain
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
/ = EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= CITY CIP TRAFFIC SIGNAL
0 = NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL
41) = EXISTING ROUNDABOUT
=PROJECT ROUNDABOUT
= EXISTING LANE
= LANE IMPROVEMENT
(CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012)
= ADDITIONAL LANE IMPROVEMENT
=PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT
= FREE RIGHT TURN
DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE
RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP
Rru = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT
(CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012)
CD = ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN OVERLAP
IMPROVEMENT (GPA OPTION I)
* = LEFT TURN LANE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN
TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE STRIPED MEDIAN
12615 - 05 - improvements.dwg
17
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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:
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
0 URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
• #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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
( URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
( URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
( URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
( URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 - TIA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
0 URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
( URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
0 URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
50
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS
'O AVENUE 50
3DB 3D 2D
POMELO
50TH
2D 50
AVENUE 52
4
I1
II
50
3D
3D
CITY OF LA QUINTA
55
L
ITT,
"SEE INSET"
al
[ 3D.
-1 SITE%
IN ,tib
S. ACCESS
1`11 \---_AVENUE 60
it 2rc'
58TH AV.
2U
SPEED
55
z
0
0
U
60TH 4V.
2U
N
2U
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
0 = ALL WAY STOP
41) =ROUNDABOUT
= STOP SIGN
4 = NUMBER OF LANES
D = DIVIDED
U = UNDIVIDED
= FREE RIGHT TURN
DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE
RTO = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP
– — – = FUTURE ROADWAY
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
2
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
4_
"7tti
DEF
5
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
4_
mf -f
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
9
JlllLL
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
4_
I�
'l ttt7
10
Madison &
Avenue 60
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
16
�!J
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
18
S. Access &
Avenue 60
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
19
Madison St. &
Main Access
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
22
Madison St. &
Project Access 3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
26
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS
NOT rn SCA -1.0
▪ ■■
w
N NW
Neill
a+►
..O■
rale
✓ ows
ClOnn
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Highway 111
Major Arterial (6D)
Primary Arterial (4D)
Secondary Arterial (4UD)
Modified Secondary (2D)
Collector (2UD)
Urban Arterial (8D)
-_tYertw31_.
1 ---lin
1
1
6
1
Source: City of La Quints Dun. 06-13 (9.22.10) & !reds (WI 2)
Arms 11
12615 - 04 - lq.dwg
27
M
N
N
O
URBAN
CROSSROA ES
.4'
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN STREET CROSS-SECTIONS
11•
80' Collector
r r
1'
IT
a, v r
•
, e• e• .
1p• 1r m r
- �f— T�•��
^—F—til—
• �y.Z.. . ..ITJ�ri'.$i�'
102' Secondary Arterial
•
.11r--
r
1'
14
'V
�•
■
r
�•
I1'
II
I
u•
s
y1
11.
i
128' Major Arterial
16'
54'
S4' Modified Secondary Arterial
FIM 10V
r a' k
108' Primary Arterial
TTI•
B
146' State Highway 111
125'
16'
• ` i y� `I�
lJ•
Tc
155' Augmented Major
12615 - 04 - lq.dwg
28
URBAN
CROSSROADS
n
14
r a' k
108' Primary Arterial
TTI•
B
146' State Highway 111
125'
16'
• ` i y� `I�
lJ•
Tc
155' Augmented Major
12615 - 04 - lq.dwg
28
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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 15±, 2017, April 9t", 2019, May 7t", 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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
0 URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 3-4: EXISTING (2019) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
(WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT)
AVENUE 50
50TH AV.
8.8
AVENUE 52
8.6
CITY OF LA QUINTA
1
"SEE INSET"
AVENUE 54
5.3
A PORT BL.
'2.0
vv, ▪ 1 \i' 1( I jr
%ham Yy1 %
44
11 y V
S.ACCESS_
(
— `t l '---. E n �.,-- AVENUE 60
i'0.-1,c, ,-3.2
1
11
I\
58
2.3
9.3
7.7
4.9
2.2
INSET
z
O
AVENUE 58 1.6 f
wNl -VI
iQ \ WE
out
� a a.1. PROJECT
_1. ACCESS. 3
I
1
SITE I
\ MA1g
\ ACCESS
2.3
58TH AV
1.8
COUNTY z
OF RIVERSIDE Y
160TH AV.
1.2
.0
r
1.4
41
LEGEND:
= INTERSECTION ID
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
— = FUTURE ROADWAY
�! = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
30
URBAN
CROSSROADS
I
_O
I
,'
POMELO
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING (2019) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
(WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT)
AVENUE 50
50TH AV.
AVENUE 52
z
0
CITY OF LA QUINTA
s � SITE '
1 JJ t
vi --r•—)�t�p p - - ---
4� —__—
/ _2_
S. ACCESS -�, 1-----1
t`_� AVENUE 60 i 60TH AV.
I
INSET
o �
a
AVENUE 58
i?,t711 r1
ouI. �I
aaI PROJECT
ACCESS. 3 -.
SITE \
4p31,1
\ ACCESS
58TH AV.
J4CKSON ST.
1
LEGEND:
sl.
= INTERSECTION ID
= COUNT DATE: 5/7/2019
= COUNT DATE: 4/9/2019
= COUNT DATE: 9/10/2019
= ESTIMATED 2019 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
(2017 COUNTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED
TO ESTIMATE 2019 CONDITIONS)
— = FUTURE ROADWAY
(J _ = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
37-
2
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
3
NOM
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4-24
*-24
4
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
aoao 4-52
*-12
5
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
205—*
222
47_�
255 r
_ r'
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4-247
f
-41
7
cisN
V O-
96-4
208—*
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
4-235
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
foo 4-12
•
*-4
30-4 t
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
i+�aMoa 4-152
Mati
�► —459
10
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-95
11
209
273 }
48— cu,
1-*
13-4
63—*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4-11
4
Th-
rn-PN
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
aoN,r, 4-26
L ~47
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
NO au
J� ,moo
14
oso
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
1809
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
•
=°°° -1136
—so
104—*
73—*
22—* —soul
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
r--rr 4-121
• i L X252
17
20-4
147 }
29—
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
!_
5
30—*�?
18
S. Access &
Avenue 60
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
19
Madison St. &
Main Access
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
22 Madison St. &
Project Access 3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
31
URBAN
CROSSROADS
I
_O
I
,'
POMELO
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 3-6: EXISTING (2019) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
(WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT)
AVENUE 50
50TH AV.
AVENUE 52
z
0
CITY OF LA QUINTA
�r J
SITE !'
r JJ /'
/ 2jAi
S. ACCESS
AVENUE 60
INSET
0
a
I LEGEND:
AVENUE 58
i?,t711 r1
ouI. �I
PROJECT
ACCESS 3 i.
SITE \
4p$4
\ ACCESS
58TH AV.
i 60TH AV.
J4CKSON ST.
1
sl.
= INTERSECTION ID
= COUNT DATE: 5/7/2019
= COUNT DATE: 4/9/2019
= COUNT DATE: 9/10/2019
= ESTIMATED 2019 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
(2017 COUNTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED
TO ESTIMATE 2019 CONDITIONS)
— = FUTURE ROADWAY
(� = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
.o?.o —55
MNR —3
59-4'
46—*t�
4-
2
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
—62
*-10
oN
3
—o0
Ji.
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
—51
-17
4
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
o•.or— 4-39
—2955
5
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
N^-- r"' —32
' —229
X26
13-4
236—*
NOP
64-
368—*-
26— rn-1::2
54_4
133— }
6
coin
22—*
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
—295
-30
7
o„a,e,
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
4-210
-I5
8
240—*
-1,417
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
u,ru, X34
54�
21—* }
.o
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
IA CO
L-
242-4
50
—140
*-787
10
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-77
11
} (-
soom
s0
3—*
Mn!"--
15-4
nr"
15-4
48—*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4-9
—2
M
min
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
aoor— 4-35
*-6
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
oM —25
J � ten
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
0 orn 4_37
.� i �► —79
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
inr�ti 4_79
`na
—1207
36-4
14— NDN
4-41
8—* *3
54-
186—*o
30— —cON
72-4
290��t�
37—* NN
16
ati
00
NN—
37-4
334-
30—
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
—123
—218
f-11
Nti'r'
M
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
18
S. Access &
Avenue 60
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
19
Madison St. &
Main Access
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
22
Madison St. &
Project Access 3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
32
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
( URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 - TIA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
0 URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
0 URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.1 - TIA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
( URBAN
CR DSSRGAD5
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 3-3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes'
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L
T
R
1 T R
1 T R
1
T
R
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Madison St. / Avenue 58
AWS
1
2
1
1 2 d
1 1 1
1
2
1
8.5
9.3
A
A
2
Madison St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
1
2
d
1 2 0
0 0 0
1
0
1
8.8
8.4
A
A
3
Madison St. / Avenue 54
AWS
2
2
1
1 2 0
1 2 d
1
2
1
12.9
15.9
B
C
4
Madison St. / Avenue 52
TS
2
2
1
2 2 d
1 2 d
1
2
1
27.9
28.5
C
C
5
Madison St. / Avenue 50
TS
2
2
1
2 2 1
1 2 1
1
2
1
28.6
29.4
C
C
6
Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
AWS
0.5
1
0.5
2 2 1
1 2 0
1
1
1
12.2
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
1
3
0
1 3 0
0.5 0.5 1
0.5
0.5
1
8.4
14.3
A
B
9
Jefferson St. / Avenue 50
TS
1
3
1
2 3 1
1 2 1
1
1
1
46.3
49.4
D
D
10
Madison St. / Avenue 60
AWS
0
0
0
1 0 1
0.5 0.5 0
0
1
1
8.2
9.1
A
A
11
Monroe St. / Avenue 60
AWS
1
1
0
1 1 1
0.5 0.5 1
0
1!
0
8.1
8.3
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
1
1
0
1 2 d
1 1 1
0
1!
0
8.5
9.2
A
A
14
Monroe St. / Avenue 54
AWS
0
1!
0
0.5 0.5 1
1 1 0
0
1!
0
14.3
12.7
B
B
15
Monroe St. / Avenue 52
AWS
0
1!
0
1 2 0
1 1 1
1
2
d
14.7
25.3
B
D
16
Monroe St. / 50th Avenue
TS
1
2
0
1 2 0
1 1 1
1
1
1>
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
Intersection Does Not Exist
19
Madison St. / Main Access
Intersection Does Not Exist
20
Project Access 1 / Avenue 58
Intersection Does Not Exist
21
Project Access 2 / Avenue 58
Intersection Does Not Exist
22
Madison St. / Project Access 3
Intersection Does Not Exist
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 righ
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right -Turn Overlap Phasing; » = Free -Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane
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:\UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Exce102615 - Report.xls43-3
37
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 3-4: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS
Roadway
Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanese
Capacity2
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
West of Madison Street
Secondary
3
21,000 4
1,600
0.08
Avenue 58
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
1 Existing Number of Through lanes
2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (Oct 2017)
'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.
R: \UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Exce1 x[12615 - Report.xlsx]3-4
38
URBAN
CROSSRDAIDS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 - Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx re?" URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 4-1: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates'
.nd Use
ITE LU
Code
QuantityZ_
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
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 Hotels
(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)
'
12 AC
1.20
0.80
2.00
2.40
1.60
4.00
50.00
Wave Village (Studio/Retail)'
(with shape studio, surf shop, board room, surf lounge/living
room, surf classroom, fitness pavilion, high performance center,
& beach club)
861
495
15 TSF
0.27
1.16
0.07
0.60
0.34
1.76
0.97
1.09
1.05
1.22
2.02
2.31
28.75
The Farm (Recreational Area/Clubhouse)8
(with Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family
Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms)
16 TSF
28.82
Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code
Quantity'
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Single Family Detached
210
26 DU
5
14
19
16
10
26
245
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)
Residential External Trips
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)
Shopping Center External Trips
2
0
2
9
11
20
195
Resort Hotel
330
150 RM
41
15
56
30
41
71
1,181
Internal to Residential/Retail
(10)
(12)
(22)
(19)
(24)
(43)
(516)
Resort Hotel External Trips
31
3
34
11
17
28
665
Wave Basin Facility
°
12 AC
14
10
24
29
19
48
600
Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort
(8)
(6)
(14)
(16)
(12)
(28)
(306)
Wave Basin Facility External Trips
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)
Wave Village External Trips
2
1
3
9
8
17
263
The Farm
495
16 TSF
18
11
29
18
19
37
461
Internal to Residential/Resort
(9)
(6)
(15)
(9)
(11)
(20)
(240)
The Farm External Trips
9
5
14
9
8
17
221
Project Subtotal
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)
Project Total External Trips
60
54
114
84
67
151
2,227
' Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edi ion (2017).
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).
• 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.
• 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.
$ 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:iUXRjobsL12600-13000(12615lExceli]12615- Report.xlsx]Phl TG 20201015
41
0 CROSSROADS
URBAN
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 4-2: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates'
Land Use
ITE LU
Code
Quantity2
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
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 Hotels
(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
4
12 AC
1.20
0.80
2.00
2.40
1.60
4.00
50.00
(Back of house wave operations included)
(4)
(4)
(8)
(16)
(16)
(32)
(330)
Internal to Residential/Resort
Wave Village (Studio/Retail)'
(with shape studio, surf shop, board room, surf lounge/living
room, surf classroom, fitness pavilion, high performance center,
861
15 TSF
0.27
0.07
0.34
0.97
1.05
2.02
28.75
& beach club)
16
40
45
85
830
Resort Hotel
330
150 RM
41
The Farm (Recreational Area/Clubhouse)8
(with Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family
495
16 TSF
1.16
0.60
1.76
1.09
1.22
2.31
28.82
Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms)
(23)
(21)
(26)
(47)
(564)
Resort Hotel External Trips
30
3
33
Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code
Quantity2
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Single Family Detached
210
26 DU
5
14
19
16
10
26
245
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)
Residential External Trips
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)
Shopping Center External Trips
11
5
16
40
45
85
830
Resort Hotel
330
150 RM
41
15
56
30
41
71
-
1,181
Internal to Residential/Retail
(11)
(12)
(23)
(21)
(26)
(47)
(564)
Resort Hotel External Trips
30
3
33
9
15
24
617
Wave Basin Facility
n
12 AC
14
10
24
29
19
48
600
Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort
(9)
(7)
(16)
(17)
(13)
(30)
(328)
Wave Basin Facility External Trips
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)
Wave Village External Trips
2
1
3
9
8
17
263
The Farm
495
16 TSF
18
11
29
18
19
37
461
Internal to Residential/Resort
(9)
(6)
(15)
(9)
(11)
(20)
(240)
The Farm External Trips
9
5
14
9
8
17
221
Project Subtotal
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)
Project Total External Trips
67
56
123
111
97
208
2,778
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edi ion (2017).
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).
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.
s The Wave Basin Facility trip rates account for pool area and 1.5 tsf of back of house wave operations.
z 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:(UXRjobsL12600-13000(12615(Excel ((12615 - Report.xlsx]Ph2 TG_20201015
42
C!! CROSSROADS
URBAN
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 4-3: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates2'9
Land Use
ITE LU
Code
Quantity2
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
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 Hotels
(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
4
12 AC
1.20
0.80
2.00
2.40
1.60
4.00
50.00
(Back of house wave operations included)
(7)
(7)
(14)
(28)
(28)
(56)
(566)
Internal to Residential/Resort
Wave Village (Studio/Retail)'
(with shape studio, surf shop, board room, surf lounge/living
room, surf classroom, fitness pavilion, high performance center,
861
15 TSF
0.27
0.07
0.34
0.97
1.05
2.02
28.75
& beach club)
27
61
56
117
1,139
Resort Hotel
330
150 RM
41
The Farm (Recreational Area/Clubhouse)8
(with Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family
495
16 TSF
1.16
0.60
1.76
1.09
1.22
2.31
28.82
Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms)
(31)
(23)
(28)
(51)
(612)
Resort Hotel External Trips
24
1
25
Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code
Quantity2
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
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)
Residential External Trips
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)
Shopping Center External Trips
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)
Resort Hotel External Trips
24
1
25
7
13
20
569
Wave Basin Facility
n
12 AC
14
10
24
29
19
48
600
Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort
(12)
(8)
(20)
(26)
(17)
(43)
(470)
Wave Basin Facility External Trips
2
2
4
3
2
5
130
Wave Village
861
15 TSF
3
2
5
16
15
31
431
Internal to Residential/Resort
(1)
(1)
(2)
(7)
(7)
(14)
(168)
Wave Village External Trips
2
1
3
9
8
17
263
The Farm
495
16 TSF
18
11
29
18
19
37
461
Internal to Residential/Resort
(9)
(6)
(15)
(9)
(11)
(20)
(240)
The Farm External Trips
9
5
14
9
8
17
221
Project Subtotal
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)
Project Total External Trips
147
300
447
383
255
638
6,994
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edi ion (2017).
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).
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.
s The Wave Basin Facility trip rates account for pool area and 1.5 tsf of back of house wave operations.
z 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:(UXRjobsL12600-13000(12615(Excel ((12615 - Report.xlsx]Ph3 TG_20201015
43
C!! CROSSROADS
URBAN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
0 U U
EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT RESIDENTIAL AND RESORT
EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION
0
50TV.
TOIFF
AVENUE 52
�f
CITY OF LA QUINTA
5
"S E INSET" "SEE NSET"
o=%
ma/
ll
\I
\I I
11, I
PORT BL.
s
Q
SITE F
'
S. ACCESS -
I N.
Ln
NUE
15
30
AVENUE 6O ________
'
0
N
No -
5
ON-SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
IA
z
0
IA
AVENUE 58
J __
L,,E Iro
as WNI.
2 1
iL a.I. PROJECT
AECESS 3
SITE
X to \
\ ACCESS
,i'' 10
/ 15
30
58TH AV,
15
z
0
10
J I
160TH AV.
111"-
r 10
-I
LEGEND:
10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 01 - study area.dwg
45
!Rigel)!
The Wave - Coral Mountain
u u
AVENUE 50
EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT SHOPPING CENTER
EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION
501k -AV.
AVE
I LLF�
NUE 52
Lel
0
Lel
/
l7
1
\\P
11.
AVENUE 54
--� Xp
a -
‘ .
i'
' a
W
�..,
dri.RTBL. Irr.o
. •
�1`I/
1
i iTrn
"SEE ININSrr-4 IrLPIdbc
ET"i kVENUE 58 : 41 20 10
Wit
SITE. 'Q `
'el.:4\.)
S. ACCESS j;
_41 \" __AVENUE60
e
CITY OF LA QUINTA
10
ISI
58TH AV,
,160TH
V.
5
ON-SITE OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
2
25
AVENUE 58
15 FNi
�
W1
as \qO Euler
�. aa.I. PROJECT..
�_.. ACCESS3
1-F-20 --
I
I _
1
z C
o s
0
X
15 ,n
30 15
SITE
5
MAIN
\ ACCESS
N
25 N�
20
ON-SITE INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
30
AVENUE 58
0
12
0
0
o
20
25
10
1--- -- 1_L _
\4c Oie iii 2 Ji
jP...... 1 PROJECT
ACCESS 3- i
16 C�
aQ N 0
SITE 1 1,
�� MAIN
ACCESS \ � N
LEGEND:
10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 01 - study area.dwg
46
URBAN
CROSSROADS
AVENUE 50
CITY OF LA QUINTA
l!.
"SEE INSET"
0
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021)
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
50TH AV.
AVENUE 52
0.1
AVENUE 54
0.1
A PORT BL.
'0.1
58
0
0
0
NOM
NOM
NOM
NOM
INSET
0.3
0.3
AVENUE 58
0.3
z
O
w IN %'Itf I
a4io
as
\ ojw3
Io
E a I PROJECT
ACCESS 3
0.3 Z
SITE I
\ MA1g
\ KCESS�
0.5
58TH AV
X
z
z
0.5
r —1 i \.
'f?
SITE. /
. 1 i
"'' S. AC IES. t V
f
� v
o[ ,� �.____ AVENUE 60
M
0.2
COUNTY z
OF RIVERSIDE Y
_____ Q
z
60TH AV.
0.2
a
oz
z I
0.2
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY
— — — = FUTURE ROADWAY
4) k = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
47
URBAN
CROSSROA1DS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 4-4: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021)
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,j, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A ' PORT BL.
5
a
NUE
=SITE FJ4
f ,,,1 ,Y 1-A,
iti
�e
/1 S. ACCESS -
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
60TH
1-
0
0
U
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
+1 = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
4-0
aiLlo f8
2
N^
2
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
3
ITI
0—
4-
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4
0-
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
5
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
171
0-4
0~
4_8
f0
0
Th
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
4-0
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
4—o
f0
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
1-4
10
5-4
7 -
Madison &
Avenue 60
4_7
f2
11
4L►
2-4
6-
2-
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4-0
f6
*-0
00
^
^00
12
8-
8-
0�
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
4-0
f5
*-0
ONO
13
0-
0-
0-
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
14
2-
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
15
0-4
2-
0-*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
f0
17
4►
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
4-0
f4
18
S. Access &
Avenue 60
0
19
0-4o-4
2-
6-
0—
Th
0-
36-4
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
f0
f-12
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—12
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
6-
4-
2--
6-
2-
0
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
48
URBAN
CROSSROADS
EXHIBIT 4-5: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021)
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,j, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A ' PORT BL.
NUE
= SITE FJ
/1 S. ACCESS -
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
60TH
1-
uvl
O
uvl
0
U
The Wave - Coral Mountain
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
+1 = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
aN0 fg
XI3
6
6— ocoo
0-4
2
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4-0
oMo
.� i ► 4
0-4
9-
4
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
4-0
f0
et 0,1
5
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
4-0
f0
*-0
6
0-4
0-
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4-6
f0
*-0
10?:
7
0-4
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
-0
0— o o
i
9
0-4
2-
2-4
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
4-0
f1
*-0
^MO
10
2-
4—
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-8
f6
11
1-
7—
1-4
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4-0
f8
*-0
r'J00
11:
12
6_4
6—
0-4
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
4-0
f9
*-0
0^0
13
ITI
0-
0-
0-
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-0
f0
Th
oa^
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-0
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
4-0
f2
*-0
0 0
16
0-4
0—
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
17
1-4
0~
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
4-0
f5
Th
18
0_4
0-
S. Access &
Avenue 60
i11
f0
19
01^
28-4
3-
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
--1
f-13
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—12
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
6-
4-
5�
7-4
O Iy5
r t
9—*
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
49
URBAN
CROSSROADS
AVENUE 50
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 4-6: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023)
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
50TH AV.
NOM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
n
"SEE INSET"
AVENUE 52
0.1
AVENUE 54
0.1
A PORT BL.
'0.1
58
0
O
0
NOM
NOM
NOM
NOM
INSET
0.6
0.5 AVENUE 58 _ 0.6
z
0
0
0
w L10 -VIt# 1
o�1cIM
O''12:16d.Q wN
\ lo
En-', I PROJECT -4 3.P
I I�
SITE I
\ tam
\ Kass
0.6
58TH AV
0
0
0.6
r —1 \.
'f/9
SITE. /
1 1
pl-
.
' S. AC IES, ? V
f
"'
V
L o[ ,� �.____ AVENUE 60
0.2
COUNTY z
OF RIVERSIDE Y
— -- - ------
o — J
60TH AV.
0.3
0
0
z I
0.2
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY
— — — = FUTURE ROADWAY
4) k = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
50
URBAN
CROSSROA1DS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 4-7: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023)
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,j, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
'1 SITE F/
fL., 1 -t -.1-1,1
,Y1-1,
lit -c"
i S. ACCESS
t_
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
i 60TH
H
0
0
U
3
ITI
0 -
5-
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
4
2-4
2-
0—*
0-4
0—
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
4-0
—10
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
2
5
Tro
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
.14 L. t-0
0 1f
oy0'
6
0-4
0~
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4_8
f0
000
7
0-4
1--
0-*
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
4-0
s-0
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
1-4
10
Jul
5-4
7—
Madison &
Avenue 60
4_8
f2
11
4 L.
2-4
6-
2-
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4-0
f6
s-0
^00
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
4—o
f5
*-0
'1ff
ONO
13
0-
0-
0-
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
14
111
0-4
2—
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
15
0-4
2—
0—i
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
f0
17
4 1►
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
4-0
f4
18
0-4o-4
2-
6-
0—
000
0=
0—
S. Access &
Avenue 60
0
19
36-4
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
--1
-16
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—15
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
7-
5-
2-
7 -
Uos
5-
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
51
URBAN
CROSSROADS
EXHIBIT 4-8: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023)
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,j, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A ' PORT BL.
NUE
= 1 SITE FJ
f1 S. ACCESS. -
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
60TH
1-
N
0
0
U
The Wave - Coral Mountain
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
+1 = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
tiul0 —14
s—I3
2
RIO
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
3
oao
10—iv
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4
0 00
2y
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
4-0
f0
*-6
•1 H
—vin
5
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
4-0
f0
*-0
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4_7
002 f0
•�i i0
0
0 0 0'
i
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
4-0
fl
0
'0f:
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
-0
0— fo'
9
0-4
2-
2—*
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
4-0
f1
% (0
^NO
10
2-
4—
Madison &
Avenue 60
—12
f6
11
1-4
10—
1-
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4-0
—0
N00
12
7-4
7—
0�
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
4-0
~0
0
0^O
13
0-
0-
0-
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-0
f0
*-2
Th
ov^
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-0
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
4—o
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
17
1-4
6-
0-
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
4-0
f8
Th
000
18
0-4
0—
S. Access &
Avenue 60
i11
—0
19
NN
37-4
5—
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
f'2
-23
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—21
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
NO
Csl
10�
7-
12—iv
21—*
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
52
URBAN
CROSSROADS
AVENUE 50
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 4-9: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026)
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
50TH AV. INSET
AVENUE 52
0.4
AVENUE 54
CITY OF LA QUINTA
0.4
A PORT BL.
'0.4
r eel% 1.9
1
r i----'----' /
Pe? & S.
1am 4
I.,se.e: ii/
"
44' S. AC IES N V
v
— �t �_ E ,__ AVENUE 60
i1.2 �: ---- ^1.3
1
1
I\
w
0
z
z
1
el
0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
58TH AV
0.6
0.5 AVENUE 58 0.6
z
0
w l a
"vie I
010
Ea
--1,.e
\ ,Wlo
�� Ea l PROJECT
ACCESS3 1i
10.7Zt
SITE
1.9
\Ogg
\ ACCESS
0.8
COUNTY z
OF RIVERSIDE Y
60TH AV.
0.7
0.6
LEGEND:
= INTERSECTION ID
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
— = FUTURE ROADWAY
�! = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
53
URBAN
CROSSROA1DS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 4-10: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026)
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,j, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
)1 SITE •$,,,s,14.7
f
-t—.1-1,1
i S. ACCESS
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
i 60TH
1-
0
0
U
3
0-
0-
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
+1 = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
4
mrilo
t L-
2-4
2—
o�
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
4-0
—10
f-29
or -r
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
0
0- 7174
2
5
01.z20
0—
5-
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
4-0
f0
*-0
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4-44
oor f0
•�i i0
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
4-0
•� i i0
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
4-0
0—*
0—oo'
i
9
000
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
4-0
~0
i
10
Madison &
Avenue 60
—12
—14
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4-0
~0
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
4-0
~0
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-0
o
►~5
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-
15
oho
5-
5—
aN0
29—
43—
14—
30—
14—
44-4
0—*
0—
14�oQo
0—*
14-
0—*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
4-0
f5
*-0
oqo
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-0
.��.~50
i
17
14—
30—
0—
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
*-0
18
orV-
L-
0—
S. Access &
Avenue 60
i24
f0
19
~N
207-
15 —
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
--1
-16
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—15
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
7-
5—iv
1--
8—*
m4'1
6-
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
54
URBAN
CROSSROADS
EXHIBIT 4-11: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026)
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,j, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
)1 SITE•'''''';,,,,,14.7
f' 1-4,--.1-1,1
-4-1-1,1
,it
"-c"
S. ACCESS
1 ,
\I
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
i 60TH
H
0
0
U
3
0o90
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4-0
—0
*-19
The Wave - Coral Mountain
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
+1 = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
co
co`^0
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
4-0
—16
—91
4
12-4
12-
0�
040
11:
f f
oti
0'^
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
0-
0—
50—
0pt,
�f-1
0—f
0—
15—*
4-0
—0
f-19
ON�M
2
5
rn
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
Tro
020
0—
15-
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
4-0
—0
It:
6
002
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
0~
4-30
*-0
101:
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
8 Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
0
15 or -o
12 4-0
0-* t
ONO
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
CI 4-0
S-0
0
15— }
10
27—
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-27
—46
11
1^00
J4L-
25—
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4—
—0
12
30-
31-
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
13
040
0-4
0 -
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-0
f-15
Okla.N
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-
5
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
040 —15
0-4 t
or -o
i
16
Or20
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-0
*-15
17
J4 ►
9-4
22-
0 -
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
4-0
—305
000
18
S. Access &
Avenue 60
4-76
—0
19
M�
150-4
13—*
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
—•3
-27
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—24
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
0
Nen
N
12-
8-
9-
15—*
29—
u
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
55
URBAN
CROSSROADS
TABLE 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
Page 1 of 2
#
Project/Location
Land Use1
Quantity
Units2
City of La Quinta
LQ1
Desert Club Apartments
Apartments
16
DU
LQ2
La Quinta Penthouses
Condo/Townhouse
8
DU
LQ3
Mountain Village Residences
Apartments
6
DU
LQ4
Mayer Villa Capri
Apartments
104.000
TSF
Medical Office
130.450
TSF
LQ6
Washington Apartments
Apartments
26
DU
LQ7
The Dune Palms Specific Plan
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
LQ12
SilverRock Phase I
Luxury Hotel
140
Rooms
Condo/Townhouse
29
DU
LQ13
SilverRock Phase II
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
LQ28
Travertine
SFDR
1,200
DU
Hotel
100
Rooms
LQ29
Centre at La Quinta
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
56
TABLE 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
Page 2 of 2
#
Project/Location
Land Use'
Quantity
Units2
County
of Riverside
RC1
Vista Soleada
230
DU
(SFDR
Equestrian Way Station
1.4
AC
City of Indian
Wells
IW1
TTM No. 37467
SFDR
18
DU
IW2
Hotel Development
Condo/Townhouse
70
DU
Hotel
263
Rooms
Quality Restaurant
5.500
TSF
City
of Indio
11
Jefferson and Hwy. 111
Health Club
38.000
TSF
Shopping Center
15.000
TSF
Restaurant
6.300
TSF
13
Polo Square
Retail
350.000
TSF
Office
200.000
TSF
Hotel
370
Rooms
Condo/Townhouse
516
DU
14
La -Z -Boy Gallery
Retail
15.600
TSF
15
Polo Community
Senior & SFDR
560
DU
1 SFDR = Single Family Detached Residential
2 AC = Acres; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Unit
R: \ UXRjobs L12600-13000112615\Excel \]12615 - Report.xlsx]Cumulatives
57
1840 The Wave at Coral Mountain
NEW YORK PVF .a
PALM DESE
LQ6
LQ4
EXHIBIT 4-12: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAP
t ri 7,CT _,
-.Ate HIGH ii, OZ
m
u
V r
INDIANN WELLS°
P
-
9
<04i
CoCHEL'L-'..
maon.71aaa[i
•
WI 101
MILS -AVE
LQ19
MUIRFIELD
EN le,O
,AN J
--J.4.2—k=W '
miQ
m
1'
H FT
ZINDIO
1.� -E
Da
14
IMM
1
LQ3 I •Q2
--LQ21
ammocraviamaz
CALLE TEMECULA
QUI
LQ25
LQ18
LQ8
110ES
�nl
UE•43
NM
r_ I
caa
Source: Esri; GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
rI CNES/Airbus DS,yUSDA, USGS, AeroGRID-IGN, and the-6IS—
User Community
12615 - CD.mxd
58
U RBAN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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 N EAR -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
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 -TDA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 - Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 -TA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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 95" 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 50" 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 95' percentile queue would be the queue experienced with the 95' 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 95' percentile queue is derived from the average queue plus
1.65 standard deviations. The 95' 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.
L.1 - TIA Report_UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�i► URBAN
CRC/SSR DADS
AVENUE 50
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 6-1: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
50TH AV. INSET
CITY OF LA QUINTA
8.8
AVENUE 52
8.3
AVENUE 54
5.6
A PORT BL.
0 0
0
P
0
9.5
7.9
5.2
'2.3
f
SITE 74,Y
-44./ f1
S. ACCESS
AVENUE 60
2.5
2.2
2.3
AVENUE 58
2.3
z
0
0
1.
1I a "Vi r+ l
a10
o
. we e i
o�lo
vs. as I PROJECT
ACESS 3 M 1L
—�C0.7 —P
Zt
I,
SITE
\ t4P 4 _11
\ KCESS�
4.1
58TH AV
2.7
COUNTY z
OF RIVERSIDE Y
i 60TH AM.
1.9
CV
2.0
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
— = FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
68
URBAN
CROSSROA1DS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 6-2: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 � 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
)1 SITE F/
f
-t-.1-1/'
i S. ACCESS
\I
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
i 60TH
H
O
U
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4-24
*-31
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
---- = FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
4
coin
iv L-
39—*
7—*
2—*
L. -
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
4-47
f-32
Nr -O.
N�
Madison
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
1957
2
5
ao�v
.O^N
I y
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
—60
*-17
°NN
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
4-17
f-223
131-4
222— NPM
55-
230—*
r�rrlN
47-4
60—*
�^N
6
8-4
13—*
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4-291
f
-41
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
scnrsi
iv L-
208—*
4-235
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
�+�-12
f1
*-4
30-
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
r,aa 4-152
•' - —303
X45
10
Madison &
Avenue 60
-107
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
o^ -11
NM= —38
� s-4
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
rnr�� —26
~44
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
ornM 4-13
-15
14
.iii
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
184
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
M�os X7
1141
209-4t
30-
44—*
27—
4 t
77— wcv
.
63-4
62-40
0-
5—* ^o
19-4
114—*
73—*
222�r'
i
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
r— -- 4-121
—30
20-4
147—*�}�
29— ^MN
17
N
.o,00_
4.
19-
60—*
7—*
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
18
ON
0—*
S. Access &
Avenue 60
i24
f0
19
t`N
207—
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
—60
f16
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—76
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
51—*
5-
45—*
8-*
fN
6-
u
M
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
69
URBAN
CROSSROADS
EXHIBIT 6-3: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,j, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
)1 SITE F/
•
i S. ACCESS
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
i 60TH
t—
N
0
0
U
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
The Wave - Coral Mountain
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
(! = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
a.o.o 4-55
a�,v —19
.� X93
4
13-
286crinNo
—
IN
71-
58—
4—
nun
▪ I,-
64-4
41—*
Madi
4-
41
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
-285
..00rn
N
2
5
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-62
f-29
�}f
OM.o
NN
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
Nn^— r M 4-32
' f229
X26
54_4
148— }
6
coo
macr
22-
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4-325
-30
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
oc^=4-257
.L7�*-15
8
73—
240— }
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
IMO 4-34
.1i1.t-9
54�
2y�}�
21- r`
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
CO
4-140
*-78 X78
10
242
324moo-
65—* r-Ln�
.o
30—
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-104
—49
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
�+�4-85
*-6
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-25
-26
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
+�
104
s-7
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
4_79
—122z
24—
4 t
57— aui
66-4
947-� } 0
4-4
8—
111..1
54-
135--
NN
72-4
299--
37—* N117
N
16
PAN.
iv L-
37-4
30~
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-123
i26
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
18
36—
6— '0-
o'4?
0-4
0—
S. Access &
Avenue 60
4-76
f0
19
NM�
N
150-
13—*
Madison St. &
Main Access
}
Mtn
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
—38
-27
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—65
22
Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
0
0,10
121-
8-
15—iv
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
70
URBAN
CROSSROADS
TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes'
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L
TR
1
TR
1
TR
1
TR
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Madison St. / Avenue 58
AWS
1
2
1
1
2
d
1
1
1
1
2
1
10.0
12.8
A
B
2
Madison St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
1
2
d
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
8.8
9.9
A
A
3
Madison St. / Avenue 54
AWS
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
2
d
1
2
1
15.2
23.5
C
C
4
Madison St. / Avenue 52
TS
2
2
1
2
2
d
1
2
d
1
2
1
29.1
30.0
C
C
5
Madison St. / Avenue 50
TS
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
29.1
29.8
C
C
6
Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
AWS
0.5
1
0.5
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
13.2
20.1
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
1
3
0
1
3
0
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
8.8
14.3
A
B
9
Jefferson St. / Avenue 50
TS
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
46.5
49.4
D
D
10
Madison St. / Avenue 60
AWS
0
0
0
1
0
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
1
1
8.7
9.5
A
A
11
Monroe St. / Avenue 60
AWS
1
1
0
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0
1!
0
8.5
8.9
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
1
1
0
1
2
d
1
1
1
0
1!
0
9.0
10.0
A
B
14
Monroe St. / Avenue 54
AWS
0
1!
0
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
0
0
1!
0
16.3
14.4
C
B
15
Monroe St. / Avenue 52
AWS
0
1!
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
d
16.8
34.3
C
D
16
Monroe St. / 50th Avenue
TS
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1>
16.6
18.5
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
0
0
0
0
1!
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
8.9
8.9
A
A
19
Madison St. / Main Access
CSS
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
12.7
15.6
B
C
20
Project Access 1/ Avenue 58
CSS
0
1!
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1*
2
0
9.2
9.8
A
A
21
Project Access 2/ Avenue 58
CSS
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
8.6
9.0
A
A
22
Madison St. / Project Access 3
CSS
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
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.
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
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.
TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop; AWS = All -Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
R: UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Excelx(12615- Reportxlsx]6-1
71
URBAN
CROSSROADS
TABLE 6-2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
Roadway
Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes'
Capacity2
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
Avenue 58
West of Madison Street
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
3
4
2
21,000 4
2,300
0.11
West of Monroe Street
28,000
4,100
0.15
West ofJackson Street
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
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.
s Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Primary capacity.
R: \UXRjobsL12600-130001126151 Excel \[12615 - Report.x1sx]6-2
72
URBAN
CROSSROADS
C4
C4
AVENUE 50
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 6-4: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
N
0
50TH AV.
13.5 14.8
d 4 L POMELO
T
z
0
u -
N
13.7
1
CITY OF LA QUINTA
11.4
AVENUE 52
11.6
AVENUE 54
8.0
1
�; 1 j40
i1 use f!
/b.S. ACCESS
4.
AVENUE 60
\:
1
1"
00
12.1
6.8
4.7
INSET
3.4
3.5
AVENUE 58
3.5
z
o M
a ^
wIa VIt#
a�10 I
\ ,Wlo
as I PROJECT
ACCESS3�
-f — 0.7
SITE1
I
\ t4P 4
\ AccES5
r
5.6
58TH AV
4.7
COUNTY
OF RIVERSIDE
N J
160TH AV.
1 3.2
0
.0
0,
JACKSON ST.
3.2
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
— = FUTURE ROADWAY
�! = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
73
URBAN
CROSSROA1DS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
AVENUE 50
EXHIBIT 6-5: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
50TH AV.
O POMELO
f 1 I
AV NUE 52
11.
16
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A ' PORT BL.
5
a
= � SITE FJ
f1 ,Y 1-A,
iti
�e
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
60TH
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
= FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
o °DOM 4-66
.1X32
46-
17—*�
2— Mco
2
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
—84
—31
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
oMo X44
*-49
4
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
can 4-72
•�iL.-28'
5
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
TeT oN2 —336
X24
19-
378-
65-
375—*rt�
42—
0,0101
70—
3y
NM
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4-375
—7
*-42
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
•-'-- —296
103-4 -
303—.o N
NM
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
O N. -12
vtiM —1
*-4
31-
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
0301
VICOM
[o-
213-454
4-202
f-77
10
} (-
Tin
'0
L-
50—*
Madison &
Avenue 60
—136
—23
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
u _�n 4-26
UH�N —65
42—
125— }
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
aN_ —41
ivL.- —18
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
`...2:`1\113-66
.� . *-20
14
COIN
t y
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-522
—31
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
crsao
4-305
X20
67-4
105-r--
32—
0
112—*
13— ^^N
39-4
135—*
lQI�Nts
N—
84—
247�� -
N
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-124
X360
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
.o -M *-4
.I 4 . *-21
18
20-4
251—*1 }
44_ NVN
19-
102—*
L._
0-
S. Access &
Avenue 60
i24
—0
19
NN
207-
15—
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
68-
5—iv
—85
f16
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
62—*
8—*
—101
22
Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
0.1
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
74
URBAN
CROSSROADS
AVENUE 50
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 6-6: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
50TH AV.
POMELO
AV NUE 52
16
SEU-
JEFFERSON ST.
11.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
)1 SITE F/
f-t--1-1,1
i S. ACCESS
\I
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
i 60TH 14.
1-
0
0
U
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
= FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
O•O~•M 4-125
+�f93
X93
84-
74—*
5— n11-
min
2
M.O
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
°°N`' 4-167
—49
4
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
4-378
X36
5
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
35
X342
24-4' 711rti
81-4'
433—*
42—* rnM
L89-*
4 U.L
..
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4-511
1
.otic,
7
rn
79-4
304—*
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
4-283
f-161
u.'0
fV1n�
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
.on`oi, , 4-35
mco^ f1
t-9
5
25�1—
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
`$N 4-316
i X130
10
ut
MN
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-139
—64
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
+� —87
s-2
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
ivL.- —25
13
247
66—*'0 0
28-
46—*
48-
1 I.-
117—* 19-1::rd.
78-4
25— '4'4-'1'4'
inv
as mho
90—*
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-61
*-33
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
Ln
:7°1 *1800
15
OOP,
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
4-121
—213
Osch
85-
283—*���
57— MMN
93-4
3 7�—*
x,0'0
16
NOM.M_
38-4
469—*
57—
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-126
*-26
I} -
v0
17
en,°
42-
170—*
10—
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
18
0R
0-*
S. Access &
Avenue 60
4-76
f0
19
150-
13—*
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
—65
-27
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—92
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
s0
sfrA
CM IR
151—*
8-4
29—*
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
75
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CR DSSRoaos
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 6-3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes'
EA (2026) Without Project
EA (2026) With Project
Delay'
(Secs)
Level of
Service'
Delay'
(Secs)
Level of
Service'
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Madison St. / Avenue 58
AWS
1
2
1
1
2
d
1
1
1
1
2
1
9.7
12.1
A
B
11.9
19.9
B
C
2
Madison St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
1
2
d
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
10.0
11.4
A
B
10.0
11.4
A
B
3
Madison St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
d
d
1
1
2
2
1
1
41.4
35.6
>80
36.1
0 m
F
D
57.7
36.9
>80
38.2
F
D
F
D
4
Madison St. / Avenue 52
TS
2
2
1
2
2
d
1
2
d
1
2
1
30.2
31.3
C
C
31.0
32.2
C
C
5
Madison St. / Avenue 50
TS
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
31.0
32.1
C
C
31.3
32.4
C
C
6
Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
0.5
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1>
18.7
24.4
72.4
25.0
C
C
F
C
22.2
24.7
>80
25.5
C
C
F
C
7
Jefferson St. / Avenue 52
- Without Improvements
- Without Improvements
RDB
RDB
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1»
1»
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1»
1»
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1»
1»
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1»
1»
18.5
7.8
36.7
8.6
C
A
E
A
21.9
8.3
40.4
9.5
C
A
E
A
8
Jefferson St. / Pomelo
TS
1
3
0
1
3
0
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
8.0
14.0
A
B
10.6
14.4
B
B
9
Jefferson St. / Avenue 50
TS
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
46.6
50.4
D
D
46.8
50.4
D
D
10
Madison St. / Avenue 60
AWS
0
0
0
1
0
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
1
1
8.9
11.0
A
B
9.5
11.9
A
B
11
Monroe St. / Avenue 60
AWS
1
1
0
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0
1!
0
9.5
10.9
A
B
10.0
12.1
B
B
12
Monroe St. / Avenue 58
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
9.8
22.1
20.1
23.0
A
C
C
C
11.2
24.4
39.8
24.5
B
C
E
C
13
Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.
AWS
1
1
0
1
2
d
1
1
1
0
1!
0
10.6
15.4
B
C
11.5
18.8
B
C
14
Monroe St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
50.7
25.4
70.1
25.9
F
C
F
C
66.1
25.4
>80
25.9
F
C
F
C
15
Monroe St. / Avenue 52
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
d
d
39.4
12.6
>80
15.4
E
B
F
B
50.4
12.9
>80
16.1
F
B
F
B
16
Monroe St. / 50th Avenue
TS
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1>
17.1
21.8
B
C
17.2
21.8
B
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
0
0
0
0
1!
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Future Intersection
8.9
8.9
A
A
19
Madison St. / Main Access
C55
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
Future Intersection
14.8
19.2
B
C
20
Project Access 1/ Avenue 58
CSS
0
1!
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1*
2
0
Future Intersection
9.3
10.0
A
B
21
Project Access 2/ Avenue 58
CSS
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
Future Intersection
8.6
9.2
A
A
22
Madison St. / Project Access 3
CSS
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Future Intersection
9.3
10.6
A
B
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right to n lane there must be sufficient width for ight
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right -Turn Overlap Phasing; » = Free -Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane
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).
TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop; AWS = All -Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
R:\UXRjobsL12600-13000\11615\Excel \ [12615 - Report.xls46-3
77
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 6-4: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Roadway
Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes'
Capacity'
Without Project
With Project
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
Avenue 58
West of Madison Street
Secondary
3
4
21,000 4
28,000
2,900
0.14
3,500
5,600
0.17
West of Monroe Street
Secondary
3,700
0.13
0.20
West ofJackson 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
1 Existing Number of Through lanes
2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (Oct 2017)
'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.
R:l UXRjobsL12600-13000\126151Excell[12615 - Report.xlsx]6-4
78
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CRC/SSR DADS
AVENUE 50
EXHIBIT 6-7: EAPC PHASE 1 (2021)
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
50ThAV.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
0
0
ai
q
11.3
00
AVENUE 52
11.6
AVENUE 54
6.6
A PORT BL.
1/1
0
z
z
.0
5.5
'3.0
CI
"SEE INSET"
I � I
i/�y
SITE-, /4
•IIN
1
u>zfl<
%ham :v -://
� � f --
,,,� S. ACCESS V
, _ t �-____ AVENUE 60
W 0.9 �; ^5.1
'
I
K
5.3
58
3.6
INSET
The Wave - Coral Mountain
58TH AV
5.1
5.1
AVENUE 58
5.1
z
0
N
f
ila w-
\ ,WIo
as I PROJECT
ACCESS3 Mi
— -f — 0.3
SITE
5.3
\MAIC
\ pCGES5
2.9
COUNTY z
OF RIVERSIDE Y
60TH AV.
1 4.6
2.3
LEGEND:
= INTERSECTION ID
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
— = FUTURE ROADWAY
�! = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
80
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 6-8: EAPC PHASE 1 (2021)
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,j, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
)1 SITE F;/
f,.., 1-t-.1-1,1
,Y1-1,
,it
"-c"
S. ACCESS
1 ,
\I
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
i 60TH
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
-33
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
---- = FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
MSM 4-60
.�+L.-4
4
113
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
0 —350
X24
2
5
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
—66
*-36
com
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
—310
*-32
168-- -
272— NNN
66-
391
sto51—iv
cooa
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
rs�o 4-346
~43
13
NM
7
oa
tiv`^
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
—349
$-10
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
4-16
f-4
551 2—VICOVI
101: 00
Ncr
37-4
2~
9
256-
275~
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
4-195
—60
} (-
MNOI
^rte
10
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-157
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
aoN_ 4-155
18-
87—
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
mo,o —30
[. ~73
41-4
62— o o
49— MN
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
co v 89
JAL.
0
94�?3
7— NN
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
22
X216
28—
'20- f
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
�Na —313
:7.7123123
�� —22
998-4229— lort
N
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
_oo 4-123
—318
. �. X28
30-4
2033 } ('
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
18
0-
S. Access &
Avenue 60
44
—0
19
O_N
36-4
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
1884—*
—142
f-12
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
186—*
—154
22
Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
81
URBAN
CROSSROADS
EXHIBIT 6-9: EAPC PHASE 1 (2021)
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,j, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
58TH AV.
SITE F/
f
-t-.1-1,1
f S. ACCESS
1 ,
\I
1-
0
0
U
3
MNcr
336—*
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4-69
*-26
Thrn
-
The Wave - Coral Mountain
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
4-111
—92
f-23
4
118-
117—*
21—iv
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
MiVlfl 4-46
•� i �► —223
2
5
0'ocrso
a�DN�
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-73
*-50
r-
occon
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
73-4
482-
87— 0NM
84-4
142—*
—41
f-494
o,
M
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4-392
—10
*-34
31-
22wan
-
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
—3630
*-30
104
�
32—*��
2 N-
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
NMS 4-190
—121398
10
0
MN
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-128
11
362
133 } -
24-
10—*
21-4
95—*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4-117
24
IflP
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
u' -s 4-41
1r1NM 2
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-37
*-35
14
LnN-U
571
57-4
102—*� }
53— `GMN
N
5
79-.—
9-
65-4
38—*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-44
f -I0
NMN
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
' o —327
.1 L. *-43
101-448
S
M
16
•Do
INM,
60-
415—*
37—*
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-125
1607
15
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
4_8
—0
18
0-4
0—
S. Access &
Avenue 60
4-11
19
28-
3—*
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
2494—*
—214
f-13
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
247—*
—227
ti
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
O
N
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
82
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 6-5: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 1 (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes'
Without Project
With Project
Delay'
(Secs)
Level of
Service'
Delay'
(Secs)
Level of
Service'
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Madison St. / Avenue 58
AWS
1
2
1
1
2
d
1
1
1
1
2
1
10.9
14.2
B
B
11.4
15.6
B
C
2
Madison St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
1
2
d
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
8.8
10.2
A
B
8.9
10.2
A
B
3
Madison St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
d
d
1
1
2
2
1
1
21.3
31.4
47.6
31.6
C
C
E
C
22.6
31.5
53.0
31.7
C
C
F
C
4
Madison St. / Avenue 52
TS
2
2
1
2
2
d
1
2
d
1
2
1
30.2
30.0
C
C
30.5
30.2
C
C
5
Madison St. / Avenue 50
TS
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
29.9
31.3
C
C
30.0
31.3
C
C
6
Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
0.5
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
18.8
36.1
49.7
39.9
C
D
E
D
19.3
36.2
52.1
40.3
C
DJ
F
D
7
Jefferson St. / Avenue 52
- Without Improvements
- Without Improvements
RDB
RDB
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1»
1»
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1»
1»
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1»
1»
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1»
1»
42.8
10.2
78.7
12.8
E
B
F
B
44.3
10.3
>80
13.0
E
B
F
B
8
Jefferson St. / Pomelo
TS
1
3
0
1
3
0
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
9.3
34.4
A
C
9.4
34.4
A
C
9
Jefferson St. / Avenue 50
TS
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
52.4
50.6
D
D
52.5
50.7
D
D
10
Madison St. / Avenue 60
AWS
0
0
0
1
0
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
1
1
8.8
10.6
A
B
8.9
10.8
A
B
11
Monroe St. / Avenue 60
AWS
1
1
0
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0
1!
0
10.4
12.0
B
B
10.5
12.3
B
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
1
1
0
1
2
d
1
1
1
0
1!
0
11.1
13.8
B
B
11.3
14.1
B
B
14
Monroe St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
31.1
23.5
35.7
23.0
D
C
E
C
33.0
23.7
35.9
23.2
0 0
E
C
15
Monroe St. / Avenue 52
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
d
d
50.3
13.0
>80
14.7
F
B
F
B
53.1
13.0
>80
14.7
F
B
F
B
16
Monroe St. / 50th Avenue
TS
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1>
16.3
20.4
B
C
16.3
20.4
B
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
0
0
0
0
1!
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Future Intersection
8.6
8.6
A
A
19
Madison St. / Main Access
CSS
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
Future Intersection
11.2
12.6
B
B
20
Project Access 1/ Avenue 58
CSS
0
1!
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1*
2
0
Future Intersection
9.9
10.6
A
B
21
Project Access 2/ Avenue 58
CSS
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
Future Intersection
9.3
9.8
A
A
22
Madison St. / Project Access 3
CSS
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Future Intersection
9.0
9.7
A
A
3 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 ight
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap Phasing; » = Free -Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1= Improvement
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane
Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop; AWS = All -Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
R:I UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Excel\j12615 - Report.x1s46-5
83
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 6-6: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 1 (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Roadway
Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes'
Capacity'
Without Project
With Project
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
Avenue 58
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
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.
5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Primary capacity.
R: UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Excelx(12615- Report.xlsx]6-6
84
URBAN
CROSSRDAIDS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�i► URBAN
CR DSSR DAD
P
M
AVENUE 50
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 6-10: EAPC PHASE 2 (2023)
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
50TH AV.
16.9 15.7
d b b POMELO
r
r
z
O
12.0
AVENUE 52
12.7
AVENUE 54
11.9
00
12.1
;y7
12.6
1
CITY OF LA QUINTA
7.8
M
M
"SEE INSET"
4 5; 5,
r 5.8
,� — I
,/4,
SI_TE� Q`
., jl(/ I Ijvi
;o= *v.1A
A
C . ,/ %
k S. AC IES -
V
of V �•___ AVENUE 60
-tom
\I -
j
k
58
6.1
4.3
INSET
58TH AV
5.5
5.6
AVENUE 58
5.6
"Vit+
I
4 C1N
� ,WIo
PROJECT IJP
ACCESS3 C�
SITE
3.8
COUNTY z
OF RIVERSIDE Y
i 60TH AN.
5.1
2.7
5.8
1 0.5_' 22
\ MAIN
\ ACCESS
Y
LEGEND:
= INTERSECTION ID
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
— = FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
86
URBAN
CROSSROA1DS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 6-11: EAPC PHASE 2 (2023)
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,j, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
'1 SITE F/
fco 1-t—.1-1,1
,Y1-1,
lit-c"
i S. ACCESS
1_
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
i 60TH
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4-60
*-38
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
---- = FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
v • 4-65
a
IfNcO 4
4
115—
67-� . "
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
.co_ 4-63
*-26
2
5
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-73
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
co 33—
X323
14-4'
315 anco
NNcm*
69-
420—* -
54- ^N_
369- t
62— 0•41-4r
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
��ti 4-386
—43
7
8
13—* LocnN
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
r ' 4-303
CO
ir 12 8
123-
373—*
277— os^'
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
Yr.—16
*-4
37—*
co
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
Soar, X209
X681
256-4
75_ C }O
10
N:0
12—*
Madison &
Avenue 60
—166
—8
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
oVDU,4-159
61
22-
52—* �
100— Z30•12
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
oo°oN 4-34
a.
L- t-16
42-4
54— C J
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
cos° 4-25
l , *-22
101028-4:- ? -
''
14
34-4
138—*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-52
—289
•1 H
OSM
15
0,000
0
3386—*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
16
30-
229—*
37—*
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-123
-342
} (-
�titi
NDN
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
4_3
—67
Th
ANN
18
0=
0-4
0—*
S. Access Sr
Avenue 60
44
—0
19
0
CJ 1�
t
36-4
3—*
Madison St. &
Main Access
}
MP OrN
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
—148
-16
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—164
22
195—*
IAN
187—*
Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
N_rsi
rIy
r t
5-
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
87
URBAN
CROSSROADS
EXHIBIT 6-12: EAPC PHASE 2 (2023)
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,I, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
SITE F/
f-t-.1-1•1'r
i S. ACCESS
\I
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
i 60TH
1—
N
0
U
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
1f
711:
11 164
*-31
The Wave - Coral Mountain
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
---- = FUTURE ROADWAY
(! = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
aO� O 4-129
2 4
—
4
126—
126—
21—
03
ao.oM
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
19-
278-1,4r:
379— ;iiMr
78-4
5087—*
-443
--3
—26
o�v
2
5
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-85
f-57
OMUI
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
94-4
4159—*
368
—51
Nu,0
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4-455
*-34
31-
22 -wan
'�?r'
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
a-0 4-300
13 -4-4011
105-
383-
335— Nor
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
—coin 4-199
—127
10
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-142
—16
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
vv� 4-122
N
N2 ♦5555
.� X11
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
1.—Igo 4-48
—35
362
133�}o
26—
14—
27—
11-�
1
62-4
56— N-
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-47
*-47
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-146
X23
74-
238-
82—iv
u'
15
106-4
466~
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
553
14:
16
rN
60-
453-
44—
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-125
*-268
} (-
MODu
17
%Os
I
37-4
141-
8—
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
18
S. Access Sr
Avenue 60
19
O'
NT
37-4
5—
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
♦221
-23
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
♦244
22
Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
0 Mrsi
267—*
r-
0=
262—*
21—
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
88
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 6-7: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 2 (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes'
Without Project
With Project
Delay'
(Secs)
Level of
Service'
Delay'
(Secs)
Level of
Service'
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Madison St. / Avenue 58
AWS
1
2
1
1
2
d
1
1
1
1
2
1
11.4
15.9
B
C
12.0
18.2
B
C
2
Madison St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
1
2
d
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
9.0
10.4
A
B
9.2
10.4
A
B
3
Madison St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
d
d
1
1
2
2
1
1
33.9
34.5
>80
38.5
D
C
F
D
36.9
34.8
>80
38.8
E
C
F
D
4
Madison St. / Avenue 52
TS
2
2
1
2
2
d
1
2
d
1
2
1
30.8
30.8
C
C
31.0
31.1
C
C
5
Madison St. / Avenue 50
TS
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
30.7
32.1
C
C
30.8
32.1
C
C
6
Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
0.5
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
24.1
42.7
79.4
41.6
C
D
F
D
25.2
43.0
>80
42.3
0 0
F
D
7
Jefferson St. / Avenue 52
- Without Improvements
- Without Improvements
RDB
RDB
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1»
1»
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1»
1»
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1»
1»
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1»
1»
59.8
11.7
>80
16.6
F
B
F
C
61.7
11.8
>80
16.9
F
B
F
C
8
Jefferson St. / Pomelo
TS
1
3
0
1
3
0
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
15.6
34.8
B
C
15.6
34.8
B
C
9
Jefferson St. / Avenue 50
TS
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
52.3
53.3
D
D
52.4
53.4
D
D
10
Madison St. / Avenue 60
AWS
0
0
0
1
0
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
1
1
9.0
11.2
A
B
9.2
11.7
A
B
11
Monroe St. / Avenue 60
AWS
1
1
0
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0
1!
0
13.0
18.0
B
C
13.3
19.1
B
C
12
Monroe St. / Avenue 58
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
15.7
17.3
>80
21.7
C
B
F
C
16.4
18.1
>80
22.9
C
B
F
C
13
Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.
AWS
1
1
0
1
2
d
1
1
1
0
1!
0
15.6
27.7
C
D
16.2
29.1
C
D
14
Monroe St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
>80
24.4
>80
24.0
F
C
F
C
>80
24.5
>80
24.0
F
C
F
C
15
Monroe St. / Avenue 52
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
AWS
TS
0
0
1!
1!
0
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
d
d
>80
13.9
>80
15.5
F
B
F
B
>80
13.9
>80
15.5
F
B
F
B
16
Monroe St. / 50th Avenue
TS
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1>
16.6
21.5
B
C
16.6
21.5
B
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
0
0
0
0
1!
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Future Intersection
8.6
8.6
A
A
19
Madison St. / Main Access
C55
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
Future Intersection
11.5
13.5
B
B
20
Project Access 1/ Avenue 58
CSS
0
1!
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1*
2
0
Future Intersection
10.1
10.9
B
B
21
Project Access 2/ Avenue 58
CSS
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
Future Intersection
9.3
9.9
A
A
22
Madison St. / Project Access 3
CSS
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Future Intersection
9.1
9.9
A
A
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right to n lane there must be sufficient width for ight
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right -Turn Overlap Phasing; » = Free -Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1= Improvement
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane
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).
TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop; AWS = All -Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
R:iUXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Excel \ [12615 - Report.x1s46-7
89
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 6-8: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 2 (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Roadway
Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes'
Capacity2
Without Project
With Project
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
Avenue 58
West of Madison Street
Secondary
3
4
2
21,000 4
5,100
5,200
3,500
0.24
5,600
0.27
0.21
0.27
West of Monroe Street
Secondary
28,000
0.19
5,800
West of Jackson Street
Secondary
14,000 4
0.25
3,800
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
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.
s Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Primary capacity.
R: i UXRjabsL12600-13000\12615\Excel \(12615 - Report.xls46-8
90
URBAN
CROSSROAIDS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CRC/SSR DADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 6-13: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026)
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
AVENUE 50 ^ 50TH AV.
13.5
13.9
0.8
15.5
1
i
CITY OF LA QUINTA
0
0
El
r
9.7
A PORT BL.
0
z
z
7.2
'4.8
1s
"SEE INSET"
46.2
58
5.8
INSET
6.2
6.3
AVENUE 58
6.3
z
O
o �
a ^
o616 I
w 0 e
wIo
a s I PROJECT
ACCESS3i
-f -
0.7
SITE1
I
\ t4P 4
\ AccE55
r
7.8
58TH AV
f'
SITE,
7.8
AVENUE 60
5.7
COUNTY
OF RIVERSIDE
00 I
160TH AV.
1 6.4
JACKSON ST.
N
3.9
LEGEND:
= INTERSECTION ID
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
— = FUTURE ROADWAY
�! = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
92
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 6-14: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026)
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,j, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
)1 SITE •$,,,s,14.7
/it?
i S. ACCESS
AVENUE 60 ._____
58TH AV.
i 60TH
r -
N
O
n
U
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
o�ln 4-86
•�i ►511
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
+1 = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
4
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
i n —39
X39
118
74—* as ra
7— •-t-mos
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
MS4-72
.� iM 52
2
5
19—
405—* }
MM
73-
466—*
64— ,
rNu�
365—*
i
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-84
—51
Ort:
ly
Lri
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
4_33
f-332
4,11.11
-r.,
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
NM
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
ul±o—l5
SIS
126-
322—* MCP}
\
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
. i�.-16
*-4
9
00�
256-
73059—*
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
4-232
*-847
^0,0
10
Madison &
Avenue 60
—183
—26
11
u '1
42-
136—*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4-167
$-0
It:
Nom^
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
•a-_ —41
—30
180 r
62— Inva
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-36
-32
rmulsoa
14
Oar
=Min
44-4
160—*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-52
f-375
0�0
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
rn03N 4-138
men=
�. X344
106-4
359—*
54—*
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-124
•uuir- —38
tea - —383
.r i t
0-4 } r
44— .
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
18
ON
0—
S. Access &
Avenue 60
i24
—0
19
M
IoM
207—
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
205—*
—160
-16
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
1986—*
—176
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
0
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
93
URBAN
CROSSROADS
EXHIBIT 6-15: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026)
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,I, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83 -
CITY OF LA QUINTA
)1 SITE•'''''';,,s,147
,it
"-c"
S. ACCESS
1`_
\I
AVENUE 60 ._____
58TH AV.
i 60TH
3
24-4
494-*
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4-206
*-51
�rn0
The Wave - Coral Mountain
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
---- = FUTURE ROADWAY
4) = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
-00 -- -115
-'
*-101
4
133-
122y
v
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
571A—
+1-497
`i 43
86-
100- }
2
5
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
4-77
*-557
v,na
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
:Tot -
i L0_14
*-34
31-4
22-
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
+T.-368
*-31
l08-
425-* 1
364-* NR" -
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
4-42
f1
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
4-214
53
10
ON
J1
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-173
-66
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
ao^o 4-131
aN -99
.�v*-21
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
aoMM 4-62
*-150-.-66
13
362-
146-*
loct:
48-
47-*
48-4
151-4aM^
90-4
171 -*
62-40U COa1,-
00
30-*
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-66
-72
ThNaso
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
LOO, 4-66
j±t-209
*-38
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
4-124
*-680
89-4'
133-- iw
92 4-*
i
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-126
*-484
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
N� 4-12
:71.-05
53_4
200-*
10_4 ^N^
18
OR
0—
S. Access &
Avenue 60
4-76
-0
19
M^
150-
13-*
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
-233
*-27
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—260
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
N
N 0'
2778-*
215-*
29-*
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
94
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 6-9: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 3 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes'
Without Project
With Project
Delay'
(Secs)
Level of
Service'
Delay'
(Secs)
Level of
Service'
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Madison St. / Avenue 58
- Without Improvements
AWS
1
2
1
1
2
d
1
1
1
1
2
1
12.7
20.8
B
C
17.3
57.9
C
F
- With Improvements
TS
1
2
1
1
2
d
1
1
1
1
2
1
27.4
32.0
C
C
27.4
32.1
C
C
2
Madison St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
1
2
d
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
9.6
10.9
A
B
9.6
10.9
A
B
3
Madison St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
AWS
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
2
d
1
2
1
79.2
>80
F
F
>80
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
2
d
1
2
1
41.2
43.6
D
D
41.6
50.3
D
D
4
Madison St. / Avenue 52
TS
2
2
1
2
2
d
1
2
d
1
2
1
31.6
32.3
C
C
32.2
33.1
C
C
5
Madison St. / Avenue 50
TS
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
31.9
33.4
C
C
32.2
33.6
C
C
6
Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
AWS
0.5
1
0.5
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
40.6
>80
E
F
54.2
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
0.5
1
0.5
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
1>
22.7
22.5
C
C
22.9
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
1
3
0
1
3
0
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
19.4
35.4
B
D
19.5
35.8
B
D
9
Jefferson St. / Avenue 50
0 m
- Without Improvements
TS
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
52.4
58.8
D
53.0
60.3
D
E
- With Improvements
TS
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
51.4
51.0
D
51.8
51.6
D
D
10
Madison St. / Avenue 60
AWS
0
0
0
1
0
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
1
1
9.4
12.8
A
B
10.2
14.8
B�
B
11
Monroe St. / Avenue 60
- Without Improvements
AWS
1
1
0
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0
1!
0
25.9
76.4
D
F
30.9
>80
D
F
- With Improvements
TS
1
1
0
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0
1!
0
33.3
34.9
C
C
34.4
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
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
23.2
33.3
C
C
25.9
38.1
C
D
13
Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.
- Without Improvements
AWS
1
1
0
1
2
d
1
1
1
0
1!
0
47.3
>80
E
F
70.4
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
1
1
0
1
2
d
1
1
1
0
1!
0
24.0
24.9
C
C
24.6
25.8
C
C
14
Monroe St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
AWS
0
1!
0
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
0
0
1!
0
>80
>80
F
F
>80
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
34.7
37.0
C
D
35.0
37.7
C
D
15
Monroe St. / Avenue 52
- Without Improvements
AWS
0
1!
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
d
>80
>80
F
F
>80
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
0
1!
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
d
33.7
41.2
C
D
34.1
44.1
C
D
16
Monroe St. / 50th Avenue
TS
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1>
17.7
25.0
B
C
17.9
25.8
B
C
17
Jackson St. / 58th Avenue
AWS
0
1!
0
0
1!
0
0
1!
0
0
1!
0
9.5
16.9
A
C
9.9
21.5
A
C
95
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 6-9: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 3 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes'
Without Project
With Project
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service'
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service'
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
AM PM
AM PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
18
S. Access / Avenue 60
CSS
0 0 0
0 1! 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
Future Intersection
8.9
8.9
A
A
19
Madison St. / Main Access
CSS
1 2 0
0 2 0
1 0 1
0 0 0
Future Intersection
17.4
24.3
C
C
20
Project Access 1/ Avenue 58
CSS
0 1! 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
1* 2 0
Future Intersection
10.2
11.1
B
B
21
Project Access 2/ Avenue 58
CSS
0 0 1
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
Future Intersection
9.4
10.0
A
B
22
Madison St. / Project Access 3
CSS
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 0 1
0 0 0
Future Intersection
9.6
11.3
A
B
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for ight
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right -Turn Overlap Phasing; » = Free -Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1= Improvement
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane
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: \UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Excel\[12615 - Report.xlsx16-9
96
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 6-10: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 3 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Roadway
Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes'
Capacity2
Without Project
With Project
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
Avenue 58
West of Madison Street
Secondary
3
4
2
21,000 4
5,700
5,900
4,900
0.27
6,300
0.30
0.28
0.41
West of Monroe Street
Secondary
28,000
0.21
7,800
West of Jackson Street
Secondary
14,000 4
0.35
5,700
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
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.
s Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Primary capacity.
R: i UXRjabsL12600-13000\12615\Excel \(12615 - Report.xls46-10
97
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 6-11: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS
FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) CONDITIONS
ID
Intersection
Turning
Movement
Lane
EAPC (2026)
Storage
Length'
(ft.)
95th Percentile'
Queue Length
AM
pM
Peak Hour
Volume
AM
PM
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
1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic.
2 Existing Storage Length = 100 ; Proposed Storage Length = 100
R: UXRjobsL12600-1300M12615VxceI \[12615 - Report.xlsx]- NOT USED --
99
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CRC/SSR DADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 7-1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT PROJECT
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
r
32.8 29.8
0.8
VI
z
0
LLI
N
i
30.2
1
CITY OF LA QUINTA
1
r
2 '�
/W
SIZE, /
— %t- E `' n AVENUE 60
4$
' 20.81; ^22.7
AVENUE 52
25.7
AVENUE 54
17.7
A PORT BL.
CO
CO
20.8
24.4
11.8
6.7
e.
18.8
INSET
58TH AV
1
AVENUE 58 11.8
it a
--I
w v^
oul
z
0
I. PROJECT
ACCESS 3 4?
I Z
12.1
SITE
MAIC
\ pCGESS�
Y
18.2
COUNTY z
OF RIVERSIDE Y
60TH AV.
14.3
9.4
LEGEND:
= INTERSECTION ID
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
— — — = FUTURE ROADWAY
RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
102
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 7-2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT PROJECT
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50
0
POMELO
0
50TH AV.
AV NUE 52
16
JEFFERSON ST.
11.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
5
A ' PORT BL.
'IN
yo=
f
VI
0
0
ITT
'SEE INSET"
1-
O
NUE
1 SITE F%
-4---h 1k'
/1 S. ACCESS-
tt_;I
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
60TH
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
4) = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
NON 138
*-10
320-4 320-
38—iv •
2
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
—160fl
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
r—aON 4_160
.� . X132
4
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
- 22
—80
5
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
u` os 4-124
N^N —626
i � —39
84—
116�?
6
°/1
748—*
c'J
165-4t
—*rm
81— N*a
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
r.— —727
.� L. —43
8
13—* �? �
7
NO
140-4
N
664—*
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
°v
ro —16
'^^f1
.
*-4
37�
2— —oo-
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
-M -376
X236
10
Madison &
Avenue 60
-258
f-1
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
amf2 —284
*-18
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
°oMM_ —104
1. —344
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4—
"'° 224
ON'N
.� i L. X49
14
0'0
ON^
N^I!7
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
08
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
an
T.(2°.2-178
i X71
256-4t }
^NO
°O^
368—*
136-4
359—*rs-}m
'Nun
77-4
301—*
129 •—^,nN
32—
997- � oo
N
217—*
-TIN
°D^
135-4t
—
213—*Nti
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
°'MNo 4-130
. �. —384
17
30-4
101: }
101�
o•
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
as 4-20
.� .'ris 9
36-
501-
39— ao
18
S. Access &
Avenue 60
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
19
Madison St. &
Main Access
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
22 Madison St. &
Project Access 3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
103
URBAN
CROSSROAIDS
AVENUE 50
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 7-3: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT PROJECT
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
50TH AV.
POMELO
AV NUE 52
16
JEFFERSON ST.
11.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A ' PORT BL.
'IN
yo=
NUE
1 SITE F%
-4---h 1k'
/1 S. ACCESS-
tt_;I
AVENUE 60
2q
58TH AV
60TH
t—
0
U
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
4) = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
4-684
"faD� —253
*-10
280-4 280-
215-
45— coo
2
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
—332
346
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
^osMo —470
� i L —950
4
84—
21 t
11tiv
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
O N —940
*-104
135—
6966—* -
r`� 2
N^^
5
r
11-1
maim
174—
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
—909
*-78
6
MO,
31-4
22—*
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4-1165
*-34
.own
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
Lo -
122 -4
547—*
565
—34
MO�O�
O•^O
,n0
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
4-300
—382
10
Madison &
Avenue 60
—653
.14[..* -2
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
°`°oco 4-324
.� i �►
S-43
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
o=o —190
—4121
13
0
Oc2N
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4_367
04
14
Nom
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
OS
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
59
362-
131—*
} (-
oou+rsi
949-4
762—*
2634
574-}-1
120-4
499- c 0
354—*
oaao
^fV
215-4
205—*
179—
Noa
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-132
—494
i
59—*
209cano
—*
cs
17
469-4►
28—*
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
-365
f-18
sONM
0
18
S. Access &
Avenue 60
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
19
Madison St. &
Main Access
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
22
Madison St. &
Project Access 3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
104
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 7-4: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
AVENUE 50
28.0
50TH
21.0 21.0
AVENUE 52
26.0
0.8
i
CITY OF LA QUINTA
1
AVENUE 54
18.0
0
O
A PORT BL.
24.6
12.0
17.0
pe
ISI_TE� 74
h it
/,,,,.
4 S. ACCESS -- -_
1, , r
t
— —tom
t '
:1
I I
I,
19.0
INSET
12.5
12.5
AVENUE 58
12.5
z
0
X
wIa l'1
ar10
wo
�I
� as I PROJECT
ACCESS3'
Z,
I I
SITE
\ MAN
\ ACCESS
_)— 4.4
r
0
14.0
58TH AV
19.0
COUNTY
OF RIVERSIDE Y
0
i 60TH M.
15.0
0
a
C.1
10.0
N
LEGEND:
= INTERSECTION ID
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
— = FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
105
URBAN
CROSSROAIDS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 7-5: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 ,j, 50TH AV.
L
AVENUE 52
16
141:83-
z
0
CITY OF LA QUINTA
'1 SITE F/
I 1 -t--,1-.k
Y -I-A j Q
4i 5. ACCESS-
1 _
58TH AV.
i 60TH
H
V7
0
0
U
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
4) = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
0
voN 138
.� �. —39
322-
183—*lo,
38—iv mi.�a`
2
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
—167
*-167
3
N
r -•-N
u7^N
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
1360
*-139
4
583—*
1183
Fa -ti
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
or^ '-
'nl37
. i 8672
2
100-4t }
N
5
N
es65-4
586-*
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
24
f-39
NTCD
C•103
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
r-rn*- 4-771
.� L. —43
8
13—* �? �
N
7
N'so
Orn
^=M
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
28
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
4-16
f-4
140-4
664—*
32—*
0
9
0
a
256-
3297—*
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
4-385
—236
10
co in
4►
Madison &
Avenue 60
-270
f-1
11
cno
} (-
375-4
411—*
1-*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
OsM ; 4-284
:T12868
150-4
373—* �
Nutl
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
viMM —104
. 1. -344
121
129-
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
"'°s N —224
.� i L. X54
14
a
0M^
N^u1
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-527
-108
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
T.(2°.2559
—71
32—
997-Trcoos
480—*
r°-Mrfl
P^
135-4t
Nos
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
rs
"'MoN4-130
. �.
i-434
17
30-4
76—*
0 t
101 N s0
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
:71113561
50—
531—*�?,
39— ao
18
S. Access &
Avenue 60
4-24
—1379
19
o-4
684—*
M
do
iv
207—
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
545—*
—355
-16
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
5408—*
—371
22
Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
co
r -
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
106
URBAN
CROSSROADS
AVENUE 50
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 7-6: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
50TH AV.
POMELO
AV NUE 52
16
JEFFERSON ST.
11.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A ' PORT BL.
NUE
SITE //
1 -Y-1-
iti
�e
/1 S. ACCESS-
tt_;I
AVENUE 60
\I
58TH AV.
60TH
r -
N
0
0
U
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
= FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
u1
m�M
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
4-684
f-019
292-
227—*
45—*
1:
coN'o
2
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-332
*-365
^NM
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
_?2 4-470
•� i 1►14140
4
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
4°r-'cm
940
*—I23
5
84-
521—* �?
1231 �u�iN
135—
61963-.- t
o'
NMco
ti
189—
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
909
*-78
14:
Qcrti
Nin
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
4-1195
*-34
7
547—*
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
885
—34
rnva
00
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
9
ciavo
362—
146—
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
4-584
*-382
} (-
^�N
10
4►
792—*
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-309
*-2
NNN
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
1 —48
4-43
272-4
576—*
583 IoM
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
0No 4-190
�. ;412
150-41 }
13
0
OWN
355—*
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-367
191
O^o'CM
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
20
15
0'
cow-.
_ON
647-.-
266—*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
9534
Th -
16
1^
59-4
972-.-
209—*
Monroe
72—*209—
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-132
*-644
17
Oco
O•cO^
4►
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
4-36
f-88
18
0R
S. Access &
Avenue 60
4-76
—991
19
26:
} (rs=-
o
N^I
78-
634—*
28—*
I-coNTh
ONM
0
0-4
1693—*
150-
13-4
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
—672
-27
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—699
22
Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
N
558—*
515-*
29—
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
107
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes'
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L
TR
1 T R
L TR
1
TR
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Madison St. / Avenue 58
- With GPCE Update Improvements
- With Modified GPCE Improvements
TS
TS
1
1
2
2
1
1
1 2 d
1 2 d
1 2 0
2 1 0
1
1
2
2
1>
1>
40.1
34.5
63.2
45.5
D
C
E
D
2
Madison St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
1
2
d
1 2 0
0 0 0
1
0
1
23.2
28.6
C
C
3
Madison St. / Avenue 54
TS
2
2
1
1 2 0
1 2 1»
1
2
1>
42.9
49.0
D
D
4
Madison St. / Avenue 52
TS
2
2
1
2 2 1
1 2 d
1
2
1
38.8
52.0
D
D
5
Madison St. / Avenue 50
TS
2
3
1
2 2 1
1 2 1
1
2
1>
36.7
53.2
D
D
6
Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
TS
1
2
1
2 2 1
1 1 1
1
1
2>
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
1
3
1
2 3 1
2 2 1
2
2
1
41.5
52.8
D
D
10
Madison St. / Avenue 60
TS
0
1!
0
2 1 1>
2 2 0
1
2
1
50.9
48.0
D
D
11
Monroe St. / Avenue 60
- With GPCE Update Improvements
- With Added GPCE Improvements
TS
TS
1
1
2
2
0
0
1 2 1
1 2 1
1 2 1
1 2 1>
1
1
1
2
1>
1>
45.1
36.7
98.8
50.3
D
D
F
D
12
Monroe St. / Avenue 58
- With GPCE Update Improvements
- With Added GPCE Improvements
TS
TS
1
2
2
2
1
1>
1 2 0
2 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 1
1
1
2
2
0
0
47.8
38.0
72.0
48.6
D
D
E
D
13
Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
1
2
0
1 2 d
1 2 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 2 0
1 2 1
1
2
1
39.0
52.7
D
D
16
Monroe St. / 50th Avenue
TS
2
2
1
2 2 0
1 2 1
1
2
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
Intersection Does Not Exist
19
Madison St. / Main Access
Intersection Does Not Exist
20
Project Access 1 / Avenue 58
Intersection Does Not Exist
21
Project Access 2 / Avenue 58
Intersection Does Not Exist
22
Madison St. / Project Access 3
Intersection Does Not Exist
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right -Turn Overlap Phasing; »= Free -Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1= Improvement
1= Improvement per City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2012)
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCMG), 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:lUXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Excel\[12615 - Report.xls47-1
108
12, CROSSROADS
URBAN
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 7-2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
Roadway
Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes'
Capacity2
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
West of Madison Street
Secondary
4
28,000
11,800
0.42
Avenue 58
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
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.
R: \UXRjobsL12600-130001126151 Excel \[12615 - Report.x1sx]7-2
109
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 7-3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes'
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service°
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L
TR
1
T
R
L
TR
1
TR
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Madison St. / Avenue 58
- With GPCE Update Improvements
- With Modified GPCE Improvements
TS
TS
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
d
d
1
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
2
2
1>
1>
41.5
35.1
70.3
53.0
D
D
E
D
2
Madison St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
1
2
d
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
23.7
29.7
C
C
3
Madison St. / Avenue 54
TS
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
2
1»
1
2
1>
44.2
53.3
D
D
4
Madison St. / Avenue 52
TS
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
d
1
2
1
39.5
53.8
D
D
5
Madison St. / Avenue 50
TS
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1>
37.6
54.8
D
D
6
Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
TS
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2>
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
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
42.2
54.6
D
D
10
Madison St. / Avenue 60
TS
0
1!
0
2
1
1>
2
2
0
1
2
1
49.6
53.1
D
D
11
Monroe St. / Avenue 60
- With GPCE Update Improvements
- With Added GPCE Improvements
TS
TS
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1>
1
1
1
2
1>
1>
46.1
37.2
103.9
53.0
D
D
F
D
12
Monroe St. / Avenue 58
- With GPCE Update Improvements
- With Added GPCE Improvements
TS
TS
1
2
2
2
1
1>
1
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
50.1
39.5
75.9
52.0
D
D
E
D
13
Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
1
2
0
1
2
d
1
2
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
2
0
1
2
1
1
2
1
39.0
54.3
D
D
16
Monroe St. / 50th Avenue
TS
2
2
1
2
2
0
1
2
1
1
2
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
0
0
0
0
1!
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
34.2
34.8
D
D
19
Madison St. / Main Access
- With Cross -Street Stop Control
- With Traffic Signal
CSS
TS
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
113.2
7.6
91.7
9.0
F
A
F
A
20
Project Access 1/ Avenue 58
CSS
0
1!
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1*
2
0
12.9
14.5
B
B
21
Project Access 2/ Avenue 58
CSS
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
10.2
10.4
B
B
22
Madison St. / Project Access 3
CSS
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
13.6
14.4
B
B
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be s riped or unstriped. To function a a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right -Turn Overlap Phasing; » = Free -Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement
1 = Improvement per City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2012)
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCMG), 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: \UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Exce1 \(12615 - Report.xlsx]7-3
110
12, CROSSROADS
URBAN
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 7-4: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Roadway
Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes'
Capacity2
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
West of Madison Street
Secondary
4
28,000
12,500
0.45
Avenue 58
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
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.
R: \UXRjobsL12600-130001126151 Excel \[12615 - Report.x1sx]7-4
111
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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).
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CR DSSR DAD
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
The Wave - Coral Mountain
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 Percentile)
Queue Length
AM
pM
Peak Hour
Volume
AM
PM
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
1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic.
2 Existing Storage Length = 100 ; Proposed Storage Length =100
R: \UXRjobsL12600-130001126151 Excel \[12615 - Report.xlsx]- NOT USED —
114
URBAN
CROSSROAIDS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
��► URBAN
CROSS RpaEIS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 8-2: EXISTING 2019 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR & 2020 SATURDAY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
COMPARISON
ID
Intersection
Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Weekday
PM Peak Hour
Saturday
Mid -Day Peak Hour
N/S1
E/W2
TOTAL
N/51
E/W2
TOTAL
1
5
12
14
Madison St. / Avenue 58
Madison St. / Avenue 50
Monroe St. / Avenue 58
Monroe St. / Avenue 54
432
577
285
418
169
798
192
403
601
1,375
477
821
365
570
160
303
224
732
109
248
589
1,302
269
551
TOTAL
1,712
1,562
3,274
1,398
1,313
2,711
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
'(to be applied to the remaining study intersections
with Weekday PM volumes to reflect Saturday mid-
day conditions)
-18.34% -15.94%
-17.20%
'Northbound and Southbound Approach Volumes
2 Eastbound and Westbound Approach Volumes
R:\UXRjobsL12600-130001126151Excel i(12615 - Repart.xlsx]8-2 Summary_(Existing Sat Camp)
116
URBAN
CROSSROAIDS
1
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 8-1: EXISTING (2020) WEEKEND PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50
POMELO
50TH AV.
AV
CITY OF LA QUINTA
z
AVENUE 60
INSET
AVENUE 58
0
0
0
as \�
aa.1.. PROJECT
ACCESS 3 �.
\ I
SITE \
\ tom
\
Kass
—
58TH AV.
i 60TH AV.
J4CKSON ST.
1
LEGEND:
= INTERSECTION ID
= COUNT DATE: 2/22/2020
= ESTIMATED SATURDAY MID-DAY
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
(WEEKDAY PM COUNTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED
TO ESTIMATE SATURDAY CONDITIONS)
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
—28
130
44—*Tros-
2
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4-42
4
Th-
°Otiv
4
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
_.00. —32
►~711
53—
305—
22— vv—
5
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
cm
26
—225
37-4
258—* o o
117— o,;,N
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
—244
f8
*-25
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
4-174
.� L. 205
60—
2199— }
M
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
SO j —28
vu�� f1
45�
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
-65
200-4
256—*
41—* u+'tv
10
co
2—
Madison &
Avenue 60
—64
f2
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
ul 4_7
12-4
—* } s
40—*
N
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
4-197
13
42—*
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
-21
f-9
ocsi
14
o•O,,r
20-
95—*
20—iv
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-64
15
240—*
i
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
4-65
0
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-102
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
4-6
4 [..*-0-.-24 .
277-4 lo } r
25— cm, -,^v
22-
19—*
18
S. Access &
Avenue 60
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
19
Madison St. &
Main Access
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
20 Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
22 Madison St. &
Project Access 3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
117
URBAN
CROSSROAIDS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 8-3: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY - WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT
Trip Generation Rates1'11
Land Use
ITE LU
Code
Units'
Saturday Mid -Day Peak Hour
Weekend Daily
In
Out
Total
Single Family Detached
210
DU
0.50
0.43
0.93
9.54
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise)
2206
DU
0.38
0.32
0.70
8.14
Resort Hotel'
(with bar, restaurant, kitchen, rooftop bar, pool bar & grill,
and spa. Back of house resort operations included)
3105
RM
0.40
0.32
0.72
8.19
Shopping Center
820
TSF
2.34
2.16
4.50
46.12
Wave Basin Facility8
4
Guests
See Below
(Back of house wave operations included)
(777)
Residential External Trips
259
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
TSF
2.15
2.06
4.21
58.09
The Farm (Recreational Area/Clubhouse)10
(with Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family
495
TSF
0.54
0.53
1.07
9.10
Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms)
2,767
Pass -By (26%)
(35)
(35)
Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code
Quantity'
Arrival Peak Hour
Departure Peak Hour
Weekend
Daily
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)
Residential External Trips
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)
Shopping Center External Trips
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)
Resort Hotel External Trips
32
11
43
27
21
48
509
Wave Basin Facility
n
2,500 Guests
260
14
274
14
260
274
2,084
Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort
(42)
(4)
(46)
(4)
(46)
(50)
(547)
Wave Basin Facility External Trips
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)
Wave Village External Trips
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
2
4
6
4
2
6
14
Project Subtotal
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)
Project Total External Trips
609
297
906
350
534
884
8,932
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th dition (2017).
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; RM = Room; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3 Source: Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017).
° 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.
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.
s 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.
Q\UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Excel \]12615 - Report.xlsx]Ph3-SE_20201015
118
Ilri2! CROSSROADS
URBAN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CRC/SSR DADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 8-2: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT, PROJECT ONLY)
0.3
CITY OF LA QUINTA
_ r e VA 2.3
SITE,`
k .
ser, V
;S.AC IEss I/
__ __ /
V
— % ' „_ ' AVENUE 60
1.2 �: ---- ,-1.6
1
INSET
1.0
1.2
AVENUE 58
1.2
z
0
w I �
-vie
aa1� al a
a l
�� Ea I PROJECT IIJJ
ACCESS3 C!�
Li
I I�
SITE I
m
ACCESS -
2.3
58TH AV
0.9
COUNTY z
OF RIVERSIDE
60TH AV.
0.9
0
0.7
LEGEND:
= INTERSECTION ID
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
--- = FUTURE ROADWAY
�! = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
120
URBAN
CROSSROA1DS
0
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 8-3: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT
ARRIVAL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (PROJECT ONLY)
AVENUE 50 50TH AV.
POMELO
16
CITY OF LA QUINTA
SITE F/
i S. ACCESS
1 ,
\I
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
i 60TH
3
00
57—iv
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4-0
—0
*-30
1(^
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY
4) AL = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
MNO
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
4-0
-88
4
14-
14-
0�
loft: o^�
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
4-0
—0
—30
oMin
2
5
N
14—
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
4-0
—0
}
ONO
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
0-4
0~
i
4—o
*-0
101:
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
4-
—1
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
4-o
—0
0-4
104-
0-
}r
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
ONO
iv L-
0-4
14-
14-
4-0
—0
i
} (-
ONO
10
rev
21-
31—
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-64
—41
11
:too
10-4
30—
10—iv
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4-0
—6
14:
12
36-
0�
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
—5
} (�
000
13
0-
0-
0—
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-0
f-14
omoTh
14
17.1
0-
10-
0—
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-0
—1
•1
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
4-0
—1
Th -
ONO
16
of o
0—
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
17
.4200
i.
25-
0—
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
4-0
—44
000
18
Oul
L-
o -4
0—
S. Access &
Avenue 60
4-68
—0
19
Ji
175
15-
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
—•4
-106
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—102
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
O
Tr
03 N
51—
34—iv
10�
55—iv
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
121
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 8-4: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT
DEPARTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (PROJECT ONLY)
AVENUE 50 50TH AV.
POMELO
16
CITY OF LA QUINTA
)1 SITE F;/
i S. ACCESS
\I
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
60TH14
1-
0
0
U
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
4-0
i8
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
---- = FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
4
47-4 t
i2
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
4—o
f0
*—I8
2
5
en
tvo
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
00—
41—iv
1"
0_4,1J
12— MN
0
12—*
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
0-4
0~
i
4-49
*-0
000
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
4ctglo
—
8
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
0-41
0-ofo'
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
10
0
12 }
Nlll
33—
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-29
11
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4—
N00 X335
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
4—
ivL.-~o1
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4—o
f0
.1 X12
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
n-4
5131 — 00
49-4
0
0� 'fit [4"
0
0
o -22o
2
0—*
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
014_7
c J0 f0
—12
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
4—
4 [...* -o°
18
S. Access &
Avenue 60
4-59
f0
19
u,,D
11�
308- 000
229-
27—*
Madison St. &
Main Access
}
enOs
1.11
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
--4
*-39
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—35
22 Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
Os N
.1i
17—
12-
43-
21-
78-
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
122
URBAN
CROSSROADS
0
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 8-5: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026)
WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT ARRIVAL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 50TH AV.
POMELO
16
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A ' PORT BL.
= 1 SITE FJ
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
60TH
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
---- = FUTURE ROADWAY
4) = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
18—
iv
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
4-138
0
It:
CO
M
2
M
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
172
f-82
Oct:
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
co
*-57
4
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
4-58
12
X50
5
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
270c):)1,17
425—* mm-co4.
92-4
45—*
4-64
f-453
oar`
NSM
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
mem
4-491
*-28
7
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
2 —390
*-25
8
26—
22y�1:
354
302— Noo°
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
o 4—
5
17
55�
T
9
PEON
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
4-177
-1208
10
Or
Madison &
Avenue 60
-18
11
300-
122—
} (-
W
46-
48—*
—a▪ c's
1
st
42-
127—*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
4-109
f-18
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
tiva 4-51
55
40
X
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-55
-fi10
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
r•^�o
4_55
enyr- —174
*-32
15
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
o=o 4-1366
.1 L. *-56
86-4
52— N-
8-4
25—*
Th
MNuO
N^au,
73—*�
110}
wenn
96—
36- }
7 O
16
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
u,cOoe 4-104
ma= —351
—41
49-4
427-- }
48— ai`
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
0 4-10
Ji .-01
46-
173—*�?�
8— —N-
18
S. Access &
Avenue 60
4-68
—0
19
0-4—*
0'0
115—
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
—192
-106
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—298
22
Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
.o
coin
234—*
55—iv
34-
0
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
123
URBAN
CROSSROADS
0
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 8-6: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026)
WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT DEPARTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
AVENUE 50 50TH AV.
POMELO
16
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A ' PORT BL.
= 1 SITE FJ
AVENUE 60
58TH AV.
60TH
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
- --- = FUTURE ROADWAY
(% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT
ONLY ACCESS
1
Madison St. &
Avenue 58
▪ — 4-138
±05
X80
148-
149—*�
18—
2
Madison St. &
Airport Blvd.
4-89
—70
Oct:
In
3
Madison St. &
Avenue 54
evo4-170
*-45
4
Madison St. &
Avenue 52
4--- —3 182
X388
5
Madison St. &
Avenue 50
j.,701....47_6343
X45
20-4
409
M
71-
482-O
M
92-4
43—*�}�
—.471
6
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 54
-504
*-28
7
rna'
Ns2:O
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 52
f-256
8
26-
22-iv 7111:
y
89-4
302—*
^oD
Nsf,
Jefferson St. &
Pomelo
5
55�
12-
9
Jefferson St. &
Avenue 50
PtiN 4-309
X127
10
r -O
Madison &
Avenue 60
4-150
—52
11
300
330—* }
47-4
50—*
✓ 0
43-4
128-*
Monroe St. &
Avenue 60
1109
f-18
12
Monroe St. &
Avenue 58
-.+t-12554
X
13
Monroe St. &
Airport Blvd.
f-590
14
Monroe St. &
Avenue 54
4-172
X32
15
u1 0
Monroe St. &
Avenue 52
564
�N^
99-4
152—*���
25—*
N ^sn
73—
210- sOISIM
96-4
376—*
M^a
16
r•
49-4
44278—*
Monroe St. &
50th Avenue
4-104
f-391
•0•0I
sO
17
Jackson St. &
58th Avenue
18
0-4
0—*
S. Access &
Avenue 60
4-59
—0
19
u,ti
229-
27—*
Madison St. &
Main Access
20
Pro ect Access 1 &
Avenue 58
—192
*-39
21 Project Access 2 &
Avenue 58
—231
22
Madison St. &
P oject Access 3
CO
CT, IS1
co Ill
212—*
2 241—*
78—
u)
12615 - 02 - volumes.dwg
124
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 8-4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes'
With Project
Delay'
(Secs)
Level of Service'
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L
TR
L
TR
L
TR
L
T
R
Arrival
Departure
Arrival
Departure
1
Madison St. / Avenue 58
- Without Improvements
AWS
1
2
1
1
2
d
1
1
1
1
2
1
41.6
37.8
E
E
- With Improvements
TS
1
2
1
1
2
d
1
1
1
1
2
1
29.9
30.9
C
C
2
Madison St. / Airport Blvd.
TS
1
2
d
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
10.5
10.8
B
B
3
Madison St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
AWS
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
2
d
1
2
1
45.9
39.3
E
E
- With Improvements
TS
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
2
d
1
2
1
42.6
41.4
D
D
4
Madison St. / Avenue 52
TS
2
2
1
2
2
d
1
2
d
1
2
1
32.3
32.0
C
C
5
Madison St. / Avenue 50
TS
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
32.5
32.5
C
C
6
Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
AWS
0.5
1
0.5
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
>80
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
0.5
1
0.5
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
1>
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
1
3
0
1
3
0
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
29.0
28.9
C
C
9
Jefferson St. / Avenue 50
- Without Improvements
TS
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
48.1
48.1
D
D
- With Improvements
TS
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
47.3
47.3
D
D
10
Madison St. / Avenue 60
AWS
0
0
0
1
0
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
1
1
12.7
13.9
B
B
11
Monroe St. / Avenue 60
- Without Improvements
AWS
1
1
0
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0
1!
0
47.0
45.2
E
E
- With Improvements
TS
1
1
0
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0
1!
0
35.3
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
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
30.2
30.4
C
C
13
Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.
- Without Improvements
AWS
1
1
0
1
2
d
1
1
1
0
1!
0
66.3
66.4
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
1
1
0
1
2
d
1
1
1
0
1!
0
22.9
22.8
C
C
14
Monroe St. / Avenue 54
- Without Improvements
AWS
0
1!
0
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
0
0
1!
0
>80
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
32.6
32.6
C
C
15
Monroe St. / Avenue 52
- Without Improvements
AWS
0
1!
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
d
>80
>80
F
F
- With Improvements
TS
0
1!
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
d
34.3
34.3
C
C
16
Monroe St. / 50th Avenue
TS
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1>
20.7
20.7
C
C
17
Jackson St. / 58th Avenue
AWS
0
1!
0
0
1!
0
0
1!
0
0
1!
0
14.6
14.6
B
B
125
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 8-4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS
#
Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes'
With Project
Delay'
(Secs)
Level of Service'
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L TR
L TR
L TR
L T R
Arrival
Departure
Arrival
Departure
18
S. Access / Avenue 60
CSS
0 0 0
0 1! 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
8.9
8.9
A
A
19
Madison St. / Main Access
CSS
1 2 0
0 2 0
1 0 1
0 0 0
30.9
32.2
D
D
20
Project Access 1/ Avenue 58
CSS
0 1! 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
1* 2 0
12.6
12.1
B
B
21
Project Access 2/ Avenue 58
CSS
0 0 1
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
9.9
10.3
A
B
22
Madison St. / Project Access 3
CSS
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 0 1
0 0 0
11.0
11.1
B
B
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right -Turn Overlap Phasing; » = Free -Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1= Improvement
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane
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:IUXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Excel\[12615- Report.xlsx]SAT EAPC
126
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
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 Percentile)
Queue Length
AM
pM
Peak Hour
Volume
Arrival
Departure
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
1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic.
2 Existing Storage Length = 100 ; Proposed Storage Length =100
R: \UXRjobsL12600-130001126151 Excel \[12615 - Report.xlsx]- NOT USED —
127
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
Perform Situation Analysis and
Risk Assessment
•
Conduct Public Outreach
.
Submit Permit
Application
.
Develop Transit Plan
•
Develop Travel Demand Management Initiatives
•
Establish Policies and Agreements
•
Develop
Traffic
Management
Plan
EVENT OPERATIONS PLANNING TIMELINE-.
Meeting an
Event Concept
and Review Past
Lessons Learned
•
Approve
Mitigation
Issue Permit
Approval
.
Advance to
Implementation
Activities
Meeting on Meeting on
Traffic Management Traffic Management
Plan Requirements Plan Review
Hearing with
Public to
Assess Needs ,, N
>• R rho
0 0 0
a o •;.1,-
o
,ice t=ti .
Event
Source: Managing Travel for Planned Special Events Handbook: Executive Summary (June 2007) prepared by Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e." URBAN
CRQSSROAQS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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'.
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�i► URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 9-1: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSTRUCT AVENUE 58 TO ITS ULTIMATE HALF
SECTION WIDTH AS A 4 -LANE SECONDARY ROADWAY
FROM MADISON STREET TO THE WESTERLY PROJECT
BOUNDARY IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT.
2
c.
I,
=.0
s ;
' VLow Density Residential ,•- J
_._.±26 DU'" ` ? �'
•
ut
r
s. VALLEY Le. � 255' 297' 273'
r ^ AVENUE 58 +'
Low Density Residential
±94 DU
A.
Low Density Residential
+118 DU
Low Density Residential
±136 DU •
The Farm.
Village_
\ \ The Wave
ON-SITE TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING SHOULD BE
IMPLEMENTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH DETAILED
CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE PROJECT SITE.
SIGHT DISTANCE AT THE PROJECT ACCESS DRIVEWAYS
SHOULD BE REVIEWED WITH RESPECT TO CITY OF LA
QUINTA SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF
PREPARATION OF FINAL GRADING, LANDSCAPE AND
STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
seuHoteluL
OH
(50 Keyes
Y'i
The Farm :
CONSTRUCT MADISON STREET
TO ITS ULTIMATE HALF SECTION
WIDTH AS A 4 -LANE SECONDARY
ROADWAY FROM AVENUE 58 TO
THE SOUTHERLY PROJECT
BOUNDARY IN CONJUNCTION
WITH DEVELOPMENT.
Low Density Residential
±122 DU
- CALLE CONCHIFA
CONSTRUCT AVENUE 60 AS A
2 -LANE ROADWAY FROM THE
WESTERLY PROJECT BOUNDARY
TO THE EASTERLY PROJECT
BOUNDARY IN CONJUNCTION
WITH DEVELOPMENT.
_AVENUE 60
18
1►
S. Access &
Avenue 60
i
19
1
Madison St. &
Main Access
11 f
20
Project Access I &
Avenue 58
t-*
21
Project Access 2 Sr
Avenue 58
22
P
-� 1
Madison St. &
oject Access 3
f
s►
i
'r :
/
t' _ILf
INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC
SIGNAL IS RECOMMENDED
FOR 2040 CONDITIONS
LEGEND:
® = INTERSECTION ID
= STOP SIGN
L = EXISTING LANE
L = NEAR TERM LANE IMPROVEMENT
=2040 LANE IMPROVEMENT
* = LEFT TURN LANE
ACCOMMODATED WITHIN EXISTING
TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE (TWLTL)
12615 - 01 - study area.dwg
130
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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 CI P -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
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
0 URBAN
CRc SSRoAD
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
TABLE 9-1: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
ID
Intersection
Pro
ect Only Traffic
EAPC Peak Hour Traffic
2040
With Project
Peak Hour
Traffic
Fair Share (%)
Phase 1
(2021)
Phase 2
(2023)
Phase 3
Buildout
(2026)
1 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
•
1
• AM Peak Hour
N/A
N/A
339
N/A
N/A
1,455
3,235
N/A
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
98
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,330
N/A
N/A
N/A
2%
• PM Peak Hour
129
5,452
2%
5
Madison St. / Avenue 50
• AM Peak Hour
58
1,967
4,587
1%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
• 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
N/A
N/A
77
3,213
3,344
3,622
4,954
N/A
N/A
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%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
• PM Peak Hour
169
3,853
4%
11
Monroe St. / Avenue 60
• AM Peak Hour
N/A
N/A
82
685
941
1,334
3,094
N/A
N/A
6%
3%
• PM Peak Hour
111
840
1,194
1,733
4,863
6%
2%
12
Monroe St. / Avenue 58
• AM Peak Hour
N/A
29
141
695
919
1,320
3,311
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
76
640
854
1,218
3,200
N/A
N/A
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
I 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) Traffi " / "EAPC Phase 1 (2021) Peak Hour Traffic")
2 Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Phase 2 (2023) Traffi " / "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:\UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Exce102615 - Report.xlsx]9-1 Fair Share
135
URBAN
CROSSROADS
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 9-2: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
(Page 1 of 3)
ID
Intersection
Jurisdiction
Phase 1 (2021)1
Phase 2 (2023)1
Phase 3 (2026)1
Funding
Source?
2040 Conditionsl
Without Project
With Project
Without Project
With Project
Without Project
With Project
Without Project
With Project
1
I Madison St. /
Avenue 58
City of La Quinta
None
None
None
None
None
• Install TS
DIF / CIP2 '•
Same
• 2nd EBL, WBR Ovl
• Same
• Same
3
Madison St. /
Avenue 54
City of La Quinta
• Install TS
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
DIF / CIP
l•
• Same
• 1 EB free RT
WBR OVL
• Same
• Same
• Same
4
Madison St. /
Avenue 52
City of La Quinta/
City of Indio
None
None
None
None
None
None
DIF / CIP
• 1 SBR
• Same
5
Madison St. /
Avenue 50
City of La Quinta/
City of Indio
None
None
None
None
None
None
DIF / CIP
• 3rd NBT
• WBR OVL
• Same
• Same
6
Jefferson St. /
Avenue 54
City of La Quinta
• Install TS
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• WBR OVL
• Same
• Same
DIF / CIP
• Same
• Same, 2nd WBR
•1NBL,1NBR
• Same
• Same
•Same
7
Jefferson St. /
Avenue 52
City of La Quinta
• 2 lane RDB
• 2nd NBT
• 2nd SBT
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
DIF / CIP
• 3 lane RDB
• Same, 3rd NBT
• Same, 3rd SBT
• 2nd EBT, 3rd EBT
• 2nd WBT, 3rd WBT
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
9
Jefferson St. /
Avenue 50
City of La Quinta/
City of Indio
None
None
None
None
• 2nd WBT
• Same
La Quinta
CIP
• Same, 2nd WBL
• 2nd EBL
• Same
• Same
10
Madison St. /
Avenue 60
City of La Quinta
None
None
None
None
None
None
--
• Install TS
• 1 Shared NB L/T/R
• 2nd SBL, 1 SBT,
SBR OVL
• 2 EBL
• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
11
Monroe St. /
Avenue 60
City of La Quinta/
County of Riverside
None
None
None
None
• Install TS
• Same
La Quinta
CIP
• Same
• 2nd NBT
• 2nd SBT
• 1 EBL, 2nd EBT,
EBR OVL
• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT
1 WBR w/ OVL
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
136
11:46?! CROSSROADS
URBAN
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 9-2: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
(Page 2 of 3)
ID
Intersection
Jurisdiction
Phase 1 (2021)1
Phase 2 (2023)1
Phase 3 (2026)1
Funding
Source?
2040 Conditionsl
Without Project
With Project
Without Project
With Project
Without Project
With Project
Without Project
With Project
12
Monroe St. /
Avenue 58
City of La Quinta/
County of Riverside
None
None
• Install TS
• Same
• Same
• 1 NBL, 1 SBL,
• 1 EBL, 1 WBL
• Same
• Same
• Same
DIF / CIP
• Same
• Same
• Same
• 2nd NBL, 2nd NBT,
1 NBR w/ OVL
• 2nd SBL, 2nd SBT
• 2nd EBT, 2nd EBR
• 2nd WBT
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
13
Monroe St. / Airport
Blvd.
City of La Quinta/
County of Riverside
None
None
None
None
• Install TS
• Same
DIF / CIP
• Same
• 2nd NBT
• 2nd EBT
• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT,
1 WBR w/ OVL
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
14
Monroe St. /
Avenue 54
City of La Quinta/
County of Riverside
• Install TS
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• 1 NBL, 1 SBL, 1
U/RI
• Same
• Same
DIF / CIP
• Same
• Same
• 2nd NBT, 1 NBR
• 2nd SBT, 1 SBR
• 2nd EBL, 2nd EBT,
1 EBR
• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT,
1 WBR
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
15
Monroe St. /
Avenue 52
City of La Quinta/
City of Indio/
County of Riverside
• Install TS
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
DIF / CIP
• Same
• 2 NBL, 1NBT, 1 NBR
• 2nd SBL
• 2nd EBT
• 2nd WBR
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
16
Monroe St. / 50th
Avenue
City of Indio
None
None
None
None
None
None
--
• 2nd NBL, 1 NBR
• 2nd SBL
• 2nd EBT
• 2nd WBT
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
137
11:46?! CROSSROADS
URBAN
The Wave - Coral Mountain
TABLE 9-2: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
(Page 3 of 3)
ID
Intersection
Jurisdiction
Phase 1 (2021)1
Phase 2 (2023)1
Phase 3 (2026)1
Funding
Source?
2040 Conditionsl
Without Project
With Project
Without Project
With Project
Without Project
With Project
Without Project
With Project
17
Jackson St. / 58th
Avenue
County of Riverside
None
None
None
None
None
None
—
• Install TS
• 1 NBL, 2nd NBT
• 1 SBL, 2nd SBT
• 1 EBL, 2nd EBT
• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
18
S. Access / Avenue
60
City of La Quinta
N/A
• Install SB CSS
• 1 shared SBL/R
• 1 shared EBL/T
• 1 shared WBT/R
N/A
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
N/A
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
Project
N/A
• Same
• Same
• Same
• Same
19
Madison St. / Main
Access
City of La Quinta
N/A
• Install EB CSS
• 1 NBL
• 1 EBL & 1 EBR
N/A
• Same
• Same
• Same
N/A
• Same
• Same
• Same
Project
N/A
• Install TS
• Same
• Same
20
Project Access 1 /
Avenue 58
City of La Quinta
N/A
• Install NB CSS
• 1 shared NBL/R
N/A
• Same
• Same
N/A
• Same
• Same
Project
N/A
• Same
• Same
• 2nd EBT
21
Project Access 2 /
Avenue 58
City of La Quinta
N/A
• Install NB CSS
• 1 NBR
N/A
• Same
• Same
N/A
• Same
• Same
Project
N/A
• Same
• Same
• 2nd EBT
1 TS = Traffic Signal; RDB = Roundabout; CSS = Cross -Street Stop Control; OVL = Overlap Phase
2 The 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:\UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Exce102615 - Report.xlsx]9-2 Imp Summary
138
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
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 2413, 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.
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
e URBAN
CR DSSR DAD
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 1.1:
APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 3.1:
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 3.2:
EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 3.3:
EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
URBAN
CROSS ROaEIS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 6.1:
E+P CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
URBAN
CROSS ROaEIS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 6.2:
E+P CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
URBAN
CROSS ROaEIS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 6.3:
EA WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 6.4:
EA WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 6.5:
EAC (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PHASE 1 CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 6.6:
EAC (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PHASE 1 CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 6.7:
EAC (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PHASE 2 CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 6.8:
EAC (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PHASE 2 CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 6.9:
EAC (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT BUILDOUT PHASE 3 CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND
PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 6.10:
EAC (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT BUILDOUT PHASE 3 CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBVN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 7.1:
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 7.2:
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 7.3:
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND
PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 7.4:
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 8.1:
EAPC PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND
PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
�1 U RBeN
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
L.1 - TIA Report UXR 2021-10-28.docx
Ck URBAN
cROssROAos
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
FINAL EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled
Evaluation
Appendix L.2
January 2022
LII J
L, URBAN
CROSSROADS
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
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
Mr. Garret Simon
CM Wave Development, LLC
February 8, 2021
Page 2
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 1/2 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
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
2
��► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Mr. Garret Simon
CM Wave Development, LLC
February 8, 2021
Page 3
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 1/2 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.
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
3
��► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Mr. Garret Simon
CM Wave Development, LLC
February 8, 2021
Page 4
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.
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
4
��► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Mr. Garret Simon
CM Wave Development, LLC
February 8, 2021
Page 5
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
Project 2012
Estimated Service Population
Residential
Residents
1,698 Residents
Hotel & Wave Basin
1,698
434 Employees
Commercial Retail
20,642
240 Employees
Hotel
11.45
300 Hotel Occupants
11.64
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
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
5
(? URBAN
CROSSROADS
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
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
5
(? URBAN
CROSSROADS
Mr. Garret Simon
CM Wave Development, LLC
February 8, 2021
Page 6
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.
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
6
L!F URBAN
CROSSROADS
Mr. Garret Simon
CM Wave Development, LLC
February 8, 2021
Page 7
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
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
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
7
��► URBAN
CROSSROADS
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
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
7
��► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Mr. Garret Simon
CM Wave Development, LLC
February 8, 2021
Page 8
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%.
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
8
L!F URBAN
CROSSROADS
Mr. Garret Simon
CM Wave Development, LLC
February 8, 2021
Page 9
• 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.
Off. a,�•�.-..�
John Kain, AICP
Principal
&if tat 1,4,0 t
Marlie Whiteman, PE
Senior Associate
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
9
(_) URBAN
CROSSROADS
Mr. Garret Simon
CM Wave Development, LLC
February 8, 2021
Page 10
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.
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
10
(`? URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT AREA RIVTAM TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES
4721
470
4699
4692
.111
4705
4725
4734 4745 1 4759 I 4765
4739
' 4746
4752
4740
4761
4757
4766
4785
4767 4781
„,\4807
C97/-) 4816
4772 4784
4801
4809
4713
=7I
J
je
4729
4738
4756
4751
4755
4771
4773
4769
4753 4774
4747
.. r
4642
4764
4754
4731
4776
4775
4787
4803
4808
4783 4798
4804
4786
4799
4788
4790
4791
4806
4810
4812
4813
4743 Source: Esh Maxar, GeoEye, Earthsth r Geogr4 phics, CN E S/Airrbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Co m munity
LEGEND
EXAMPLE OF RIVTAM LOW VMT TAZ
RiVTAM TAZ ENCOMPASSING CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT
j// SEPARATE TAZ ADDED FOR PROJECT REPRESENTATION IN RIVTAM
1.
12615 - 01 - TAZ.mxd
11
URBAN
CRC.SSRQAPS
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
12
ATTACHMENT A
LOW VMT AREA SCREENING CALCULATIONS
12615-12 Revised VMT Eval.docx
(�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
RivTAM TAZ 4742
Vehicle Flow OD Method'
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
Vehicle Flow OD Total
390 2
Automobiles
363
Trucks
26
OD Method Vehicle Miles Traveled'
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
VMT OD Total
5,119 6
VMT OD Automobiles
4,114
VMT OD Trucks
1,005
Trip Length
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
Trip Length Total
13.14 3
Automobiles
11.32
Trucks
38.42
Vehicle Flow PA Method4
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
HB5
3 6
PA Method Vehicle Miles Traveled/
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
VMT HB
727
Trip Length
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
Emp
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
Trip Length Total
22.73
8
SED9
1 OD = Origin -Destination
2 Vehicle Flow OD = Automobiles + Trucks
3 Trip Length = VMT OD Total/Vehicle Flow OD Total
4 PA = Production -Attraction
HB = Home -Based
62012 home-based vehicle trips generated by TAZ 4742 based upon RIVTAM
72012 home-based vehicle miles traveled generated by TAZ 4742 based upon RIVTAM
8 Trip Length = VMT PA Total/Vehicle Flow PA Total
9 SED = Socio -Economic Data
10 OD VMT/SP = Total Origin -destination vehicle miles traveled per service population
11 PA HB VMT/POP = Total production -attraction vehicle miles traveled per resident
C\UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Exrel\(11615 VMT Matrix Method Summary.xls44742 H8 VMT
A-1
SUMMARY
TAZ 4742 - No Project 2012
OD VMT/SP1°
PA HB VMT/POP11
96.58 24.08
Base Year (2012)
TAZ 4742
Emp
50
SP
53
1 OD = Origin -Destination
2 Vehicle Flow OD = Automobiles + Trucks
3 Trip Length = VMT OD Total/Vehicle Flow OD Total
4 PA = Production -Attraction
HB = Home -Based
62012 home-based vehicle trips generated by TAZ 4742 based upon RIVTAM
72012 home-based vehicle miles traveled generated by TAZ 4742 based upon RIVTAM
8 Trip Length = VMT PA Total/Vehicle Flow PA Total
9 SED = Socio -Economic Data
10 OD VMT/SP = Total Origin -destination vehicle miles traveled per service population
11 PA HB VMT/POP = Total production -attraction vehicle miles traveled per resident
C\UXRjobsL12600-13000\12615\Exrel\(11615 VMT Matrix Method Summary.xls44742 H8 VMT
A-1
SUMMARY
TAZ 4742 - No Project 2012
OD VMT/SP1°
PA HB VMT/POP11
96.58 24.08
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
FINAL EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Traffic Response to Comments
Appendix L.3
January 2022
LII J
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 Iteris 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
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.
12615 - Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx
November 8, 2021
Page 3
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.
12615 - Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx
November 8, 2021
Page 4
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 (E8#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.
12615 - Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx
November 8, 2021
Page 5
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
12615 - Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx
November 8, 2021
Page 6
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 111 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 111 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
12615 - Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx
November 8, 2021
Page 7
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
12615 - Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx
November 8, 2021
Page 8
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
12615 - Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx
November 8, 2021
Page 9
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 TAZ5 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
12615 - Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx
November 8, 2021
Page 10
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 (HB WS), 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
(080).
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.
12615 - Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx
November 8, 2021
Page 11
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.
12615 - Response to comments (2021.11.08).docx
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
FINAL EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Average Surfer Population
Kelly Slater Wave Company
Appendix L.4
January 2022
1
L'- J
KELLY
SLATER
WAVECO
November 04, 2021
Memo: Coral Mountain Average Daily Surfer Population
Total average maximum surfers at Coral Mountain in Wave Basin per day is 130, with surfers distributed across 3 distinct
wave zones; 18 surfers throughout the day on the Main Wave, and 56 surfers throughout the day on each of the End Bay
Waves. The maximum capacity in the Wave Basin at any given time is 6 surfers on the Main Wave and 12 surfers in each of
the End Bay Waves.
KSWC - Coral Moutain
THFl1RFT1CAL SLORF SCHEDULE -Average Daily Population Analysis
Morn Wave
Check In/Out
In Water
video/Training
1 7100 1 8:00 1 9,00 1 10:00 1 11100 1 12:00 1 13,00 1 14,00 1 15:00 1 16:00 1 ll.00 1 1800 1 19:00 1 20:00 1 21100 1 22.00
fi
6
6 6
6 6 6
0 6 6
6
6
6
0
0
Fnd Boy 1
Check In/Out
In Water
Fad Boy 2
Check Inlout
In water
14
14
14 14
4
14
14
14
12
12 12 12 12
12 12 12 12
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
FIG. 1
14
0
0 Surfing Time
Total M. Sufers in Wave Basin Per Zane
18
56
14 14 14 14 0 14 56
12 12
Total Max Sellers In Wave Basio Per flay I30
12 12 12
Figure 1 depicts a theoretical surf schedule to map out average daily surfer population on site.
0
We expect to maintain these same maximum capacities during special events, although we expect fewer surfers will be in
the water at one time during the special events because the programming will be focused on the Main Wave, rather than
the beginning surfer classes in the End Bays. Staff count per day totals approximately 50 with a distribution across Surf
Operations, which is focused on front of house support and Wave Operations, which is focused on back of house support.
Harold J. Portillo
VP Wave Project Design
Kelly Slater Wave Company
3300 La Cienega Place, Los Angeles, CA 90016
M: + 310 804 7092
W: www.kswaveco.com
3300 La Cienega Place, Los Angeles, CA 90016 KSWaveCo.com
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
FINAL EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Wave Basin Areas
Kelly Slater Wave Company
Appendix M.1
January 2022
LII J
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 L 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
Signature:
By: Harold Portillo Date: 9/29/2020
After reviewing the response, does the vendor anticipate:
That a change order will be required? ❑Yes L No If redesign required
That there will be an increase in the cost of the project? ❑Yes I No If redesign
required
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
FINAL EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Kelly Slater Wave Company Responses
Appendix M.2
January 2022
LII J
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
No
Yes ❑
❑Datasheets
❑Calculations
// Drawings
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.
VE
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.
0.0008 g
0.0008 g
0.0004 g
0.0002 g
Start
Axis. X
Sample rale: 99.8 Hz
FFT size'. 1024 00.3 sec.j
Vibration spectrum analysis. Lemoore California, 14:19 April 5, 2021. Position on east wall
approximately 10 feet north of the control tower.
11151111IIIVII Lal
Intensity
NI:umeraIIVII
(g)
ve 1 u Ly
(cm/s)
Perceived shaking
Potential damage
<0.0017
<0.1
Not felt
None
11-111
0.0017 — 0.014
0.1 —1.1
Weak
None
IV
0.014 — 0.039
1.1 — 3.4
Light
None
V
0.039 — 0.092
3.4 — 8.1
Moderate
Very light
VI
0.092 — 0.18
8.1 —16
Strong
Light
VII
0.18 —0.34
16 —31
Very strong
Moderate
VIII
0.34 — 0.65
31— 60
Severe
Moderate to heavy
IX
0.65 — 1.24
60 —116
Violent
Heavy
X+
> 1.24
s 116
Extreme
Very heavy
"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)
VE
Recirculation System
Reclaim ! Makeup
Water System
Vacuum
FAtration
Wave Basin
t
�► ;�`1
1
Uv Vestment Chlorine Ttaatntant
Reclaim Water
(backwash / vacuum)
Equalization
Makeup Water
(well)
Clarification
MEDIA FILTRATION SYSTEM
MEDIA FILTRATION VESSELS
• MEDIA FILTRATION SYSTEM.
• FILTRATION DOWN TO 2 MICRON.
• PRE -FILTRATION COAGULATION SYSTEM
INTIGRATION.
• WTS DESIGNED FOR SIDE FLOW.
By: Harold Portillo
Signature:
X Date: 01/26/2022
Digital Signature
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
LII J
•
DESERT
RECREATION [DISTRICT
July 29, 2021
Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development, LLC
1405 Arapahoe Ave
Boulder, CO 80302
Via email:
www.meriwetherco.com
RE: Letter of Agreement re Trail Easement
Dear Garrett,
This Letter of Agreement follows up on our recent discussions regarding extending
a Desert Recreation District (DRD) trail across the western boundary of the CM
Wave Development, LLC property (the "Property") as part of the DRD trail
system/CV Link project (the "Trail.") The Trail would be unpaved but improved
with a District approved trail surface (e.g., bound and rolled decomposed granite or
Stayloc-type product) and between 4' and 10' wide as determined by CM Wave
Development, and would run for approximately 200 yards through your property,
in the approximate location shown on the map attached as Exhibit 1. For the
avoidance of doubt, the Trail would not need to be improved to, or comply with,
ADA standards.
The purpose of the Trail is to connect the DRD/CV Link Trail System between 58th
and Jefferson and Trilogy. The District has construction documents for the Trail
that you may wish to review as you include this in your Specific Plan and EIR (the
"Project"). Subject to the terms and conditions described herein, CM Wave
Development, LLC will construct the Trail in substantial conformance with those
construction documents with the additional flexibility of width as noted above. In
addition, CM Wave Development, LLC shall have the right, but not the obligation,
to install gates and restrict access to the Trail to daylight hours. This right to restrict
access is important for the protection of Coral Mountain itself, and to ensure
adequate safety for the future residents and guests of the Property.
The District has a current lease with the Bureau of Reclamation (the "Lease") and
45-305 Oasis St, Indio, CA 92201 j Tel: 760.347.3484 I Fax: 760.347.4660 MyRecreationDistrict.com
has expressed an intention to seek an extension of the Lease in order to further
develop the DRD trial system in the vicinity of the Property. Were the Lease not to
be renewed (scheduled for 2023 for a 2026 termination date) the Trail would not go
forward and the easement would not be needed. Accordingly, the commitment by
CM Wave Development, LLC stated herein to (1) construct the Trail, and (2)
dedicate a permanent easement to DRD to provide public access to the Trail, is
expressly conditioned on DRD successfully extending its Lease with the Bureau of
Reclamation and CM Wave Development, LLC receiving all necessary approvals
and permits to construct the proposed Project.
Upon execution of an extension of the Lease and a final decision of DRD to proceed
with its proposed trail in the vicinity of the Property, DRD shall provide written
notice of same to CM Wave Development, LLC. Upon receipt of said notice, and
receipt of all necessary approvals and permits to construct the proposed Project, CM
Wave Development, LLC shall proceed with construction of the Trail, and upon
completion thereof, shall grant and record a permanent easement to DRD, over and
across that portion of the Property containing the Trail. Upon acceptance and
recordation of that easement, DRD shall operate and maintain the Trail.
Execution of this Letter of Agreement confirms the parties' intent that CM Wave
Development, LLC will construct the Trail and convey a permanent easement to
DRD to ensure public access to same, on the terms and conditions described herein.
Agreed:
Kevin Kalmar, General Manager
Desert Recreation District
Garrett Simon
Manager
CM Wave Development, LLC
r
•
'14
J:141AV H.1.#$
•
ral
•
•
4.
•
1'
Mr i
s
IS
. Von
Ivo
R;: