Appendix N - Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison with VMT Analysis & Air Quality & GHG ComparisonCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
DRAFT EIR
SCH# 2021020310
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Trip Generation Comparison
With VMT Analysis
& Air Quality and GHG Comparison
Appendix N
June 2021
LII J
t?) URBAN
CROSSROADS
May 26, 2021
Ms. Michelle Witherspoon
MSA Consulting
34200 Bob Hope Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
urbanxroads.com
SUBJECT: CORAL MOUNTAIN ALTERNATIVES - TRIP GENERATION AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE
GAS COMPARISON
Dear Ms. Michelle Witherspoon:
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this summary of trip generation associated with potential
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Project Alternatives. The Five alternatives to the Coral Mountain Specific
Plan include the following:
1. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative ("Alternative 1"), the project would remain in its current
and existing vacant condition. No significant trip generation and consequently air quality or
greenhouse gas emissions are anticipated to occur for this alternative.
2. Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements
Under the No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative ("Alternative 2"), the project site would be
developed as designated with the following land use designations as established by the Andalusia at
Coral Mountain Specific Plan (SP 03-067), as amended, and the La Quinta General Plan land use map.
Under SP 03-067 the property would develop approximately 8.4 acres of commercial use, 204.2 acres
of low-density residential uses, and 171.9 acres for golf course use, as indicated in the table below.
Existing Land Use and Zoning Summary
Existing Land Use
Existing Zoning
Acres
General Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
8.4
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential (RL)
204.2
Open Space (Recreation)
Golf Course (GC)
171.9
Total
384.5 acres
For trip generation purposes, Alternative 2 is estimated based on 750 dwelling units (DU) of low
density residential, 60,000 square feet (sf) commercial retail, and 18 -hole golf course.
12615-10 Trip Generation Comparison 5.26.2021.docx
Ms. Michelle Witherspoon
MSA Consulting
May 26, 2021
Page 2
3. Alternative 3, Reduced Density
Under the Reduced Density Alternative ("Alternative 3"), the project would be reduced by one-third
of the proposed density of the project. Therefore, this Reduced Density Alternative would develop
400 residential dwelling units, 100 resort/hotel rooms, 38,000 square feet of resort commercial uses,
and 40,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses. The Wave Basin and other proposed
recreational amenities would remain part of the project as presently proposed.
For trip generation purposes, the following land uses have been utilized:
• 331 DU - Single -Family Detached Residential
• 69 DU - Multi -Family Residential
• 100 Rooms - Resort Hotel
• 40,000 SF — Commercial Retail
• 12 Acre - Wave Basin (no change from proposed Project)
• 10,000 SF - Wave Village
• 11,000 SF - The Farm
4. Alternative 4, Golf/Resort Hotel
Under the Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative ("Alternative 4"), the project would be developed with a
resort hotel of 150 hotel rooms and associated recreational, restaurant and retail amenities, an 18 -
hole championship golf course that would be open to the public to play on a daily fee basis, and 600
low-density residential units.
Alternative 4 trip generation is estimated based on 600 dwelling units (DU) of low density residential,
150 room resort hotel, and 18 hole golf course.
5. Alternative 5, The Lake Amenity/No Hotel
Under the Lake Amenity Alternative ("Alternative 5"), the project would be developed with a lake
amenity instead of the wave basin, and would include 75010w -density residential units and 8.4 acres
of commercial uses at the northeast corner of the property, consistent with the existing entitlements
for the project site. The lake would be approximately 75 acres, and would be used for typical lake
uses, including small electric boats, sailing, kayaking and paddle boarding (but not gas -powered boats
or recreational watercraft). This alternative would not have the hotel or other Tourist Commercial
uses and would not have the occasional special events that would be associated with the wave basin.
Alternative 5 trip generation is estimated based on 750 dwelling units (DU) of low density residential,
60,000 sf of commercial retail, and 75 acre (AC) lake.
12615-10 Trip Generation Comparison 5.26.2021.docx
eo URBAN
CROSSROADS
Ms. Michelle Witherspoon
MSA Consulting
May 26, 2021
Page 3
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND EMISSIONS COMPARISON
In order to compare the traffic characteristics of the proposed Project provided in the Coral Mountain
Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), October 27, 2020 and the proposed Project Alternatives, trip -
generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (10th
Edition, 2017) manual are utilized.
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. 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. Trip generation rates for golf course (Code 430)
has been utilized for Project Alternative uses. For the Lake, ITE 9th edition rates for ITE Code 417 have
been utilized for this private open space amenity.
Table 1 presents the trip generation rates and resulting trip generation summary for the proposed
Project (consistent with the TIA). As shown on Table 1, the proposed Project 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.
Project alternative 2 (No Project/Existing Entitlements) is shown on Table 2. The Project alternative is
anticipated to generate a net total of 7,923 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 589
external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 829 external VPH during the
weekday PM peak hour. Due to the increase in trip generation, the total air quality and greenhouse gas
operational emissions would increase (proportional to the increase in daily trips) since the majority of
operational emissions are associated with mobile sources. In addition, this Alternative is anticipated to
have a higher daily VMT and per capita VMT because it generates more daily trips and lacks the
complimentary mix of uses and enhanced connectivity between those uses which reduce per capita
VMT.
Project alternative 3 (Reduced Density) is shown on Table 3. The Project alternative is anticipated to
generate a net total of 4,600 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 293 external vehicles
per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 412 external VPH during the weekday PM peak
hour. Due to the decrease in trip generation, the total air quality and greenhouse gas operational
emissions would decrease (proportional to the decrease in daily trips) since the majority of operational
emissions are associated with mobile sources. This Alternative may have a reduced per capita VMT
because the reduced number of homes is presented in a mixed use context, but this reduction cannot
be confirmed or quantified without a full set of VMT model runs, which is beyond the scope of this
Alternatives analysis and the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d).
Project alternative 4 (The Golf/Resort Hotel) is shown on Table 4. The Project alternative is anticipated
to generate a net total of 6,799 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 496 external
12615-10 Trip Generation Comparison 5.26.2021.docx
eo URBAN
CROSSROADS
Ms. Michelle Witherspoon
MSA Consulting
May 26, 2021
Page 4
vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 664 external VPH during the weekday
PM peak hour. Due to the decrease in trip generation, the total air quality and greenhouse gas
operational emissions would decrease (proportional to the decrease in daily trips) since the majority of
operational emissions are associated with mobile sources. This Alternative is expected to have a higher
total VMT on a per capita basis because this Alternative removes the project's neighborhood -serving
commercial uses that would reduce the length of vehicle trips for the residents of this project and the
surrounding communities (who would need to drive further for those commercial amenities under this
Alternative).
Project alternative 5 (The Lake/No Hotel) is shown on Table 5. The Project alternative is anticipated to
generate a net total of 7,911 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 573 external vehicles
per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 805 external VPH during the weekday PM peak
hour. Due to the increase in trip generation, the total air quality and greenhouse gas operational
emissions would increase (proportional to the increase in daily trips) since the majority of operational
emissions are associated with mobile sources. This Alternative may have a higher total VMT on a daily
and per capita basis because it generates more trips per day and lacks on-site complementary resort
accommodations, but this increase cannot be confirmed or quantified without a full set of VMT model
runs, which is beyond the scope of this Alternatives analysis and the requirements of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(d).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the comparison results presented on Table 6, the potential Project land use alternatives are
estimated to generate the following differences when compared to the proposed Project provided in
TIA, AQ, and GHG:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Build
- No trips are generated, no air quality or greenhouse gas emissions would occur.
• Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements
- 929 more external trip -ends per day, 142 more AM peak hour external trips, and 191 more
PM peak hour external trips. Due to the increase in trip generation, the total air quality and
greenhouse gas operational emissions would increase (proportional to the increase in daily
trips) since the majority of operational emissions are associated with mobile sources. This
Alternative is also anticipated to have a higher daily VMT and per capita VMT.
• Alternative 3: Reduced Density
- 2,394 fewer external trip -ends per day, 154 fewer AM peak hour external trips, and 226
fewer PM peak hour external trips. Due to the decrease in trip generation, the total air
quality and greenhouse gas operational emissions would decrease (proportional to the
12615-10 Trip Generation Comparison 5.26.2021.docx
eo URBAN
CROSSROADS
Ms. Michelle Witherspoon
MSA Consulting
May 26, 2021
Page 5
decrease in daily trips) since the majority of operational emissions are associated with
mobile sources. This Alternative may have a reduced per capita VMT because the reduced
number of homes is presented in a mixed-use context.
• Alternative 4: The Golf/Resort Hotel
- 195 fewer external trip -ends per day, 49 more AM peak hour external trips, and 26 more
PM peak hour external trips. Due to the decrease in trip generation, the total air quality
and greenhouse gas operational emissions would decrease (proportional to the decrease in
daily trips) since the majority of operational emissions are associated with mobile sources.
This Alternative is expected to have a higher total VMT on a per capita basis because it
removes the project's neighborhood -serving commercial uses.
• Alternative 5: The Lake/No Hotel
- 917 more external trip -ends per day, 126 more AM peak hour external trips, and 167 more
PM peak hour external trips. Due to the increase in trip generation, the total air quality and
greenhouse gas operational emissions would increase (proportional to the increase in daily
trips) since the majority of operational emissions are associated with mobile sources. This
Alternative may have a higher total VMT on a daily and per capita basis because it generates
more trips per day and lacks on-site complementary resort accommodations.
As shown in Table 6, Alternative 2 (No Project/Existing Entitlements) presents the most intense scenario
for daily and peak hour trip generation and consequently emissions associated with air quality and
greenhouse gases.
If you have any questions, please contact John Kain at (949) 375-2435 or Haseeb Qureshi (714) 612-6664.
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
John Kain, AICP Haseeb Qureshi
Principal Associate Principal
12615-10 Trip Generation Comparison 5.26.2021.docx
eo URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison
TABLE 1: PROPOSED PROJECT 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.
F:(UXRjobsL12600-13000(12615(Excel ((12615 - TG Comparison.xlsx]TIA
6
C!P/ CROSSROADS
URBAN
Coral Mountain Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison
TABLE 2: ALTERNATIVE 2 , NO PROJECT/EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates'
Land Use
ITE LU
Quantity2
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
Land Use
Code
Quantity2
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Daily
Single Family Detached
210
750 DU
0.19
0.55
0.74
0.62
0.37
0.99
9.44
Shopping Center
820
60 TSF
0.58
0.36
0.94
1.83
1.98
3.81
37.75
Golf Course
430
18 HOLES
1.39
0.37
1.76
1.54
1.37
2.91
30.38
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
750 DU
143
413
556
465
278
743
7,080
Internal to Retail/Golf Course
(5)
(11)
(16)
(25)
(24)
(49)
(429)
Residential External Trips
138
402
540
440
254
694
6,651
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/Golf Course
(9)
(6)
(15)
(28)
(31)
(59)
(590)
Shopping Center External Trips
19
9
28
54
60
114
1,109
Golf Course
430
18 HOLES
25
7
32
28
25
53
547
Internal to Residential/Retail
(7)
(4)
(11)
(17)
(15)
(32)
(384)
Golf Course External Trips
18
3
21
11
10
21
163
Project Subtotal
203
442
645
603
422
1,025
9,892
Internal Capture Subtotal
(21)
(21)
(42)
(70)
(70)
(140)
(1,403)
Pass -By (Shopping Center)
(7)
(7)
(14)
(28)
(28)
(56)
(566)
Project Total External Trips
175
414
589
505
324
829
7,923
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edi ion (2017).
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF =Thousand Square Feet
F:(UXRjobsL12600-13000(12615(Excel ((12615 - TG Comparison.xlsx]Al t 2
7 URBAN
Coral Mountain Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison
TABLE 3: ALTERNATIVE 3, REDUCED DENSITY 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
331 DU
0.19
0.55
0.74
0.62
0.37
0.99
9.44
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise)
220
69 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
100 RM
0.27
0.10
0.37
0.20
0.27
0.47
7.87
Shopping Center
820
40 TSF
0.58
0.36
0.94
1.83
1.98
3.81
37.75
Wave Basin Facility6
a
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)
(19)
(19)
(38)
(378)
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
10 TSF
0.27
0.07
0.34
0.97
1.05
2.02
28.75
& beach club)
17
43
35
78
772
Resort Hotel
330
100 RM
27
The Farm (Recreational Area/Clubhouse)8
(with Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family
495
11 TSF
1.16
0.60
1.76
1.09
1.22
2.31
28.82
Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms)
(23)
(16)
(21)
(37)
(444)
Resort Hotel External Trips
12
2
14
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
331 DU
63
182
245
205
122
327
3,125
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise)
220
69 DU
8
24
32
24
14
38
505
Internal to Retail/Resort
(8)
(23)
(31)
(39)
(30)
(69)
(604)
Residential External Trips
63
183
246
190
106
296
3,026
Shopping Center
820
40 TSF
23
14
37
73
79
152
1,510
Pass -By (25%)
(4)
(4)
(8)
(19)
(19)
(38)
(378)
Internal to Residential/Resort
(7)
(5)
(12)
(11)
(25)
(36)
(360)
Shopping Center External Trips
12
5
17
43
35
78
772
Resort Hotel
330
100 RM
27
10
37
20
27
47
787
Internal to Residential/Retail
(15)
(8)
(23)
(16)
(21)
(37)
(444)
Resort Hotel External Trips
12
2
14
4
6
10
343
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
10 TSF
2
2
4
11
10
21
288
Internal to Residential/Resort
(1)
(1)
(2)
(5)
(5)
(10)
(120)
Wave Village External Trips
1
1
2
6
5
11
168
The Farm
495
11 TSF
12
8
20
13
12
25
317
Internal to Residential/Resort
(6)
(4)
(10)
(7)
(6)
(13)
(156)
The Farm External Trips
6
4
10
6
6
12
161
Project Subtotal
149
250
399
375
283
658
7,132
Internal Capture Subtotal
(49)
(49)
(98)
(104)
(104)
(208)
(2,154)
Pass -By (Shopping Center)
(4)
(4)
(8)
(19)
(19)
(38)
(378)
Project Total External Trips
96
197
293
252
160
412
4,600
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 15.7 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 tsf of back of house wave operations.
z Wave Village trip rates account for 10 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 11 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.
F:(UXRjobsL12600-13000(12615(Excel ((12615 - TG Comparison.xlsx]Al t 3
8
C!P/ CROSSROADS
URBAN
Coral Mountain Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison
TABLE 4: ALTERNATIVE 4, THE GOLF/RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates2'9
Land Use
ITE LU
Quantity2
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
Land Use
Code
Quantity2
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Daily
Single Family Detached
210
600 DU
0.19
0.55
0.74
0.62
0.37
0.99
9.44
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
Golf Course
430
18 HOLES
1.39
0.37
1.76
1.54
1.37
2.91
30.38
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
600 DU
114
330
444
372
222
594
5,664
Internal to Retail/Resort
(3)
(9)
(12)
(9)
(8)
(17)
(149)
Residential External Trips
111
321
432
363
214
577
5,515
Resort Hotel
330
150 RM
41
15
56
30
41
71
1,181
Internal to Residential/Golf Course
(7)
(7)
(14)
(10)
(11)
(21)
(252)
Golf Course
430
18 HOLES
25
7
32
28
25
53
547
Internal to Residential/Resort
(8)
(2)
(10)
(8)
(8)
(16)
(192)
Wave Village External Trips
17
5
22
20
17
37
355
Project Subtotal
180
352
532
430
288
718
7,392
Internal Capture Subtotal
(18)
(18)
(36)
(27)
(27)
(54)
(593)
Project Total External Trips
162
334
496
403
261
664
6,799
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
5 Hotel trip rates account for ancillary facilities which include bar, restaurant, kitchen, rooftop bar, pool bar & grill, spa, and back of house resort operations.
F:(UXRjobsL12600-13000(12615(Excel ((12615 - TG Comparison.xlsx]Al t 4
9
C!°I CROSS ROADS
URBAN
Coral Mountain Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison
TABLE 5: ALTERNATIVE 5, THE LAKE AMENITY/NO HOTEL TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates'
Land Use
ITE LU
Quantity'
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
Land Use
Code
Quantity'
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Daily
Single Family Detached
210
750 DU
0.19
0.55
0.74
0.62
0.37
0.99
9.44
Shopping Center
820
60 TSF
0.58
0.36
0.94
1.83
1.98
3.81
37.75
Regional Park (Lake)3
417
75 AC
--
--
--
0.09
0.11
0.20
4.57
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
Internal to Retail/Regonal Park (Lake)
210
750 DU
143
(5)
413
(8)
556
(13)
465
(30)
278
(27)
743
(57)
7,080
(499)
Residential External Trips
138
405
543
435
251
686
6,581
Shopping Center
Pass -By (25%)
Internal to Residential/Regonal Park (Lake)
820
60 TSF
35
(7)
(8)
22
(7)
(5)
57
(14)
(13)
110
(28)
(28)
119
(28)
(30)
229
(56)
(58)
2,265
(566)
(580)
Shopping Center External Trips
20
10
30
54
61
115
1,119
Regional Park (Lake)
Internal to Residential/Retail
417
75 AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
(5)
8
(6)
15
(11)
343
(132)
Golf Course External Trips
-
-
-
2
2
4
211
Project Subtotal
Internal Capture Subtotal
Pass -By (Shopping Center)
-
178
(13)
(7)
435
(13)
(7)
613
(26)
(14)
582
(63)
(28)
405
(63)
(28)
987
(126)
(56)
9,688
(1,211)
(566)
Project Total External Trips
158
415
573
491
314
805
7,911
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edi ion (2017).
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF =Thousand Square Feet
3 Since the current ITE does not have trip rates for a Regional Park (Lake), ITE 9th edition rates have been uitlized.
F:(UXRjobsL12600-13000(12615(Excel ([12615 - TG Comparison.xlsx]Al t 5
10
irhAw!! CROSS ROADS
URBAN
Coral Mountain Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison
TABLE 6: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON SUMMARY
Land Use'
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
In I Out I Total
In I Out
Total
Alternative 1 Trip Generation Comparison
Proposed Project (TIA)
- 496 DU SFDR, 104 DU MF, 150 RM Hotel, 60 TSF Retail,
12 AC Wave Basin Facility, 15 TSF Wave Village, 16 TSF The Farm
No Project/No Build Alternative
147
0
300
0
447
0
383
0
255
0
638
0
6,994
0
ALTERNATIVE 1 DELTA (Alternative - TIA) -147
-300
-447
-383
-255
-638
-6,994
Alternative 2 Trip Generation Comparison
Proposed Project (TIA)
- 496 DU SFDR, 104 DU MF, 150 RM Hotel, 60 TSF Retail,
12 AC Wave Basin Facility, 15 TSF Wave Village, 16 TSF The Farm
No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative
- 750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 18 Hole Golf Course
147
175
300
414
447
589
383
505
255
324
638
829
6,994
7,923
ALTERNATIVE 2 DELTA (Alternative - TIA) 28
114
142
122
69
191
929
Alternative 3 Trip Generation Comparison
Proposed Project (TIA)
- 496 DU SFDR, 104 DU MF, 150 RM Hotel, 60 TSF Retail,
12 AC Wave Basin Facility, 15 TSF Wave Village, 16 TSF The Farm
Reduced Density
- 331 DU SFDR, 69 DU MF, 100 RM Hotel, 40 TSF Retail,
12 AC Wave Basin Facility, 10 TSF Wave Village, 11 TSF The Farm
147
96
300
197
447
293
383
252
255
160
638
412
6,994
4,600
ALTERNATIVE 3 DELTA (Alternative - TIA) -51
-103
-154
-131
-95
-226
-2,394
Alternative 4 Trip Generation Comparison
Proposed Project (TIA)
- 496 DU SFDR, 104 DU MF, 150 RM Hotel, 60 TSF Retail,
12 AC Wave Basin Facility, 15 TSF Wave Village, 16 TSF The Farm
The Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative
- 600 DU SFDR, 150 RM Hotel, 18 Hole Golf Course
147
162
300
334
447
496
383
403
255
261
638
664
6,994
6,799
ALTERNATIVE 4 DELTA (Alternative - TIA) 15
34
49
20
6
26
-195
Alternative 5 Trip Generation Comparison
Proposed Project (TIA)
- 496 DU SFDR, 104 DU MF, 150 RM Hotel, 60 TSF Retail,
12 AC Wave Basin Facility, 15 TSF Wave Village, 16 TSF The Farm
The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative
- 750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 75 AC Regional Park (Lake)
147
158
300
415
447
573
383
491
255
314
638
805
6,994
7,911
ALTERNATIVE 5 DELTA (Alternative - TIA) 11
115
126
108
59
167
917
DU = Dwelling Unit; RM = Occupied Room; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; AC = Acre;
SFDR = Single Family Detached Residential; MF = Multi Family Residential
F;\ UXRjobsL12600-13000\ 12615\ Excel \(12615 - TG Comparison.xlsx]TG_Comparison
11
C!°I CROSSROADS
URBAN
t?) URBAN
CROSSROADS
April 12, 2021
Ms. Michelle Witherspoon
MSA Consulting
34200 Bob Hope Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
urbanxroads.com
SUBJECT: CORAL MOUNTAIN ALTERNATIVES - TRIP GENERATION AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE
GAS COMPARISON
Dear Ms. Michelle Witherspoon:
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this summary of trip generation associated with potential
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Project Alternatives. The Five alternatives to the Coral Mountain Specific
Plan include the following:
1. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative ("Alternative 1"), the project would remain in its current
and existing vacant condition. No significant trip generation and consequently air quality or
greenhouse gas emissions are anticipated to occur for this alternative.
2. Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements
Under the No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative ("Alternative 2"), the project site would be
developed as designated with the following land use designations as established by the Andalusia at
Coral Mountain Specific Plan (SP 03-067), as amended, and the La Quinta General Plan land use map.
Under SP 03-067 the property would develop approximately 8.4 acres of commercial use, 204.2 acres
of low-density residential uses, and 171.9 acres for golf course use, as indicated in the table below.
Existing Land Use and Zoning Summary
Existing Land Use
Existing Zoning
Acres
General Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
8.4
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential (RL)
204.2
Open Space (Recreation)
Golf Course (GC)
171.9
Total
384.5 acres
For trip generation purposes, Alternative 2 is estimated based on 750 dwelling units (DU) of low
density residential, 60,000 square feet (sf) commercial retail, and 18 -hole golf course.
12615-10 Trip Generation Comparison
Ms. Michelle Witherspoon
MSA Consulting
April 12, 2021
Page 2
3. Alternative 3, Reduced Density
Under the Reduced Density Alternative ("Alternative 3"), the project would be reduced by one-third
of the proposed density of the project. Therefore, this Reduced Density Alternative would develop
400 residential dwelling units, 100 resort/hotel rooms, 38,000 square feet of resort commercial uses,
and 40,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses. The Wave Basin and other proposed
recreational amenities would remain part of the project as presently proposed.
For trip generation purposes, the following land uses have been utilized:
• 331 DU - Single -Family Detached Residential
• 69 DU - Multi -Family Residential
• 100 Rooms - Resort Hotel
• 40,000 SF — Commercial Retail
• 12 Acre - Wave Basin (no change from proposed Project)
• 10,000 SF - Wave Village
• 11,000 SF - The Farm
4. Alternative 4, Golf/Resort Hotel
Under the Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative ("Alternative 4"), the project would be developed with a
resort hotel of 150 hotel rooms and associated recreational, restaurant and retail amenities, an 18 -
hole championship golf course that would be open to the public to play on a daily fee basis, and 600
low-density residential units.
Alternative 4 trip generation is estimated based on 600 dwelling units (DU) of low density residential,
150 room resort hotel, and 18 hole golf course.
5. Alternative 5, The Lake Amenity/No Hotel
Under the Lake Amenity Alternative ("Alternative 5"), the project would be developed with a lake
amenity instead of the wave basin, and would include 750 low-density residential units and 8.4 acres
of commercial uses at the northeast corner of the property, consistent with the existing entitlements
for the project site. The lake would be approximately 75 acres, and would be used for typical lake
uses, including small electric boats, sailing, kayaking and paddle boarding (but not gas -powered boats
or recreational watercraft). This alternative would not have the hotel or other Tourist Commercial
uses and would not have the occasional special events that would be associated with the wave basin.
Alternative 5 trip generation is estimated based on 750 dwelling units (DU) of low density residential,
60,000 sf of commercial retail, and 75 acre (AC) lake.
12615-10 Trip Generation Comparison
�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Ms. Michelle Witherspoon
MSA Consulting
April 12, 2021
Page 3
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND EMISSIONS COMPARISON
In order to compare the traffic characteristics of the proposed Project provided in the Coral Mountain
Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), October 27, 2020 and the proposed Project Alternatives, trip -
generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (10th
Edition, 2017) manual are utilized.
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. 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. Trip generation rates for golf course (Code 430)
has been utilized for Project Alternative uses. For the Lake, ITE 9th edition rates for ITE Code 417 have
been utilized for this private open space amenity.
Table 1 presents the trip generation rates and resulting trip generation summary for the proposed
Project (consistent with the TIA). As shown on Table 1, the proposed Project 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.
Project alternative 2 (No Project/Existing Entitlements) is shown on Table 2. The proposed Project
alternative is anticipated to generate a net total of 7,923 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday
with 589 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 829 external VPH
during the weekday PM peak hour. Due to the increase in trip generation, the total air quality and
greenhouse gas operational emissions would increase (proportional to the increase in daily trips) since
the majority of operational emissions are associated with mobile sources.
Project alternative 3 (Reduced Density) is shown on Table 3. The proposed Project alternative is
anticipated to generate a net total of 4,600 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 293
external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 412 external VPH during the
weekday PM peak hour. Due to the decrease in trip generation, the total air quality and greenhouse gas
operational emissions would decrease (proportional to the decrease in daily trips) since the majority of
operational emissions are associated with mobile sources.
Project alternative 4 (The Golf/Resort Hotel) is shown on Table 4. The proposed Project alternative is
anticipated to generate a net total of 6,799 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 496
external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 664 external VPH during the
weekday PM peak hour. Due to the decrease in trip generation, the total air quality and greenhouse gas
operational emissions would decrease (proportional to the decrease in daily trips) since the majority of
operational emissions are associated with mobile sources.
12615-10 Trip Generation Comparison
(?) URBAN
CROSSROADS
Ms. Michelle Witherspoon
MSA Consulting
April 12, 2021
Page 4
Project alternative 5 (The Lake/No Hotel) is shown on Table 5. The proposed Project alternative is
anticipated to generate a net total of 7,911 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 573
external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 805 external VPH during the
weekday PM peak hour. Due to the increase in trip generation, the total air quality and greenhouse gas
operational emissions would increase (proportional to the increase in daily trips) since the majority of
operational emissions are associated with mobile sources.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the comparison results presented on Table 6, the potential Project land use alternatives are
estimated to generate the following differences when compared to the proposed Project provided in
TIA, AQ, and GHG:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Build
- No trips are generated, no air quality or greenhouse gas emissions would occur.
• Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements
- 929 more external trip -ends per day, 142 more AM peak hour external trips, and 191 more
PM peak hour external trips. Due to the increase in trip generation, the total air quality and
greenhouse gas operational emissions would increase (proportional to the increase in daily
trips) since the majority of operational emissions are associated with mobile sources. Due
to the decrease in trip generation, the total air quality and greenhouse gas operational
emissions would decrease (proportional to the decrease in daily trips) since the majority of
operational emissions are associated with mobile sources.
• Alternative 3: Reduced Density
- 2,394 fewer external trip -ends per day, 154 fewer AM peak hour external trips, and 226
fewer PM peak hour external trips. Due to the decrease in trip generation, the total air
quality and greenhouse gas operational emissions would decrease (proportional to the
decrease in daily trips) since the majority of operational emissions are associated with
mobile sources.
• Alternative 4: The Golf/Resort Hotel
- 195 fewer external trip -ends per day, 49 more AM peak hour external trips, and 26 more
PM peak hour external trips. Due to the decrease in trip generation, the total air quality and
greenhouse gas operational emissions would decrease (proportional to the decrease in
daily trips) since the majority of operational emissions are associated with mobile sources.
12615-10 Trip Generation Comparison
L., URBAN
CROSSROADS
Ms. Michelle Witherspoon
MSA Consulting
April 12, 2021
Page 5
• Alternative 5: The Lake/No Hotel
- 917 more external trip -ends per day, 126 more AM peak hour external trips, and 167 more
PM peak hour external trips. Due to the increase in trip generation, the total air quality and
greenhouse gas operational emissions would increase (proportional to the increase in daily
trips) since the majority of operational emissions are associated with mobile sources. Due
to the decrease in trip generation, the total air quality and greenhouse gas operational
emissions would decrease (proportional to the decrease in daily trips) since the majority of
operational emissions are associated with mobile sources.
As shown in Table 6, Alternative 2 (No Project/Existing Entitlements) presents the most conservative
scenario for daily and peak hour trip generation and consequently emissions associated with air quality
and greenhouse gases.
If you have any questions, please contact John Kain at (949) 375-2435 or Haseeb Qureshi (714) 612-6664.
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
John Kain, AICP Haseeb Qureshi
Principal Associate Principal
12615-10 Trip Generation Comparison
�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison
TABLE 1: PROPOSED PROJECT 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.
F:(UXRjobsL12600-13000(12615(Excel ((12615 - TG Comparison.xlsx]TIA
6
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison
TABLE 2: ALTERNATIVE 2 , NO PROJECT/EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates'
Land Use
ITE LU
Quantity2
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
Land Use
Code
Quantity2
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Daily
Single Family Detached
210
750 DU
0.19
0.55
0.74
0.62
0.37
0.99
9.44
Shopping Center
820
60 TSF
0.58
0.36
0.94
1.83
1.98
3.81
37.75
Golf Course
430
18 HOLES
1.39
0.37
1.76
1.54
1.37
2.91
30.38
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
750 DU
143
413
556
465
278
743
7,080
Internal to Retail/Golf Course
(5)
(11)
(16)
(25)
(24)
(49)
(429)
Residential External Trips
138
402
540
440
254
694
6,651
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/Golf Course
(9)
(6)
(15)
(28)
(31)
(59)
(590)
Shopping Center External Trips
19
9
28
54
60
114
1,109
Golf Course
430
18 HOLES
25
7
32
28
25
53
547
Internal to Residential/Retail
(7)
(4)
(11)
(17)
(15)
(32)
(384)
Golf Course External Trips
18
3
21
11
10
21
163
Project Subtotal
203
442
645
603
422
1,025
9,892
Internal Capture Subtotal
(21)
(21)
(42)
(70)
(70)
(140)
(1,403)
Pass -By (Shopping Center)
(7)
(7)
(14)
(28)
(28)
(56)
(566)
Project Total External Trips
175
414
589
505
324
829
7,923
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edi ion (2017).
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF =Thousand Square Feet
F:(UXRjobsL12600-13000(12615(Excel ((12615 - TG Comparison.xlsx]Al t 2
7
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison
TABLE 3: ALTERNATIVE 3, REDUCED DENSITY 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
331 DU
0.19
0.55
0.74
0.62
0.37
0.99
9.44
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise)
220
69 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
100 RM
0.27
0.10
0.37
0.20
0.27
0.47
7.87
Shopping Center
820
40 TSF
0.58
0.36
0.94
1.83
1.98
3.81
37.75
Wave Basin Facility6
a
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)
(19)
(19)
(38)
(378)
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
10 TSF
0.27
0.07
0.34
0.97
1.05
2.02
28.75
& beach club)
17
43
35
78
772
Resort Hotel
330
100 RM
27
The Farm (Recreational Area/Clubhouse)8
(with Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family
495
11 TSF
1.16
0.60
1.76
1.09
1.22
2.31
28.82
Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms)
(23)
(16)
(21)
(37)
(444)
Resort Hotel External Trips
12
2
14
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
331 DU
63
182
245
205
122
327
3,125
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise)
220
69 DU
8
24
32
24
14
38
505
Internal to Retail/Resort
(8)
(23)
(31)
(39)
(30)
(69)
(604)
Residential External Trips
63
183
246
190
106
296
3,026
Shopping Center
820
40 TSF
23
14
37
73
79
152
1,510
Pass -By (25%)
(4)
(4)
(8)
(19)
(19)
(38)
(378)
Internal to Residential/Resort
(7)
(5)
(12)
(11)
(25)
(36)
(360)
Shopping Center External Trips
12
5
17
43
35
78
772
Resort Hotel
330
100 RM
27
10
37
20
27
47
787
Internal to Residential/Retail
(15)
(8)
(23)
(16)
(21)
(37)
(444)
Resort Hotel External Trips
12
2
14
4
6
10
343
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
10 TSF
2
2
4
11
10
21
288
Internal to Residential/Resort
(1)
(1)
(2)
(5)
(5)
(10)
(120)
Wave Village External Trips
1
1
2
6
5
11
168
The Farm
495
11 TSF
12
8
20
13
12
25
317
Internal to Residential/Resort
(6)
(4)
(10)
(7)
(6)
(13)
(156)
The Farm External Trips
6
4
10
6
6
12
161
Project Subtotal
149
250
399
375
283
658
7,132
Internal Capture Subtotal
(49)
(49)
(98)
(104)
(104)
(208)
(2,154)
Pass -By (Shopping Center)
(4)
(4)
(8)
(19)
(19)
(38)
(378)
Project Total External Trips
96
197
293
252
160
412
4,600
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 15.7 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 tsf of back of house wave operations.
z Wave Village trip rates account for 10 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 11 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.
F:(UXRjobsL12600-13000(12615(Excel ((12615 - TG Comparison.xlsx]Al t 3
8
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Coral Mountain Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison
TABLE 4: ALTERNATIVE 4, THE GOLF/RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates2'9
Land Use
ITE LU
Quantity2
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
Land Use
Code
Quantity2
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Daily
Single Family Detached
210
600 DU
0.19
0.55
0.74
0.62
0.37
0.99
9.44
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
Golf Course
430
18 HOLES
1.39
0.37
1.76
1.54
1.37
2.91
30.38
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
600 DU
114
330
444
372
222
594
5,664
Internal to Retail/Resort
(3)
(9)
(12)
(9)
(8)
(17)
(149)
Residential External Trips
111
321
432
363
214
577
5,515
Resort Hotel
330
150 RM
41
15
56
30
41
71
1,181
Internal to Residential/Golf Course
(7)
(7)
(14)
(10)
(11)
(21)
(252)
Golf Course
430
18 HOLES
25
7
32
28
25
53
547
Internal to Residential/Resort
(8)
(2)
(10)
(8)
(8)
(16)
(192)
Golf Course External Trips
17
5
22
20
17
37
355
Project Subtotal
180
352
532
430
288
718
7,392
Internal Capture Subtotal
(18)
(18)
(36)
(27)
(27)
(54)
(593)
Project Total External Trips
162
334
496
403
261
664
6,799
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
5 Hotel trip rates account for ancillary facilities which include bar, restaurant, kitchen, rooftop bar, pool bar & grill, spa, and back of house resort operations.
Z: (Shared(UcJobsL12600-13000L12600(12615_partial (Excel ((12615 - TG Comparison.xlsx]Al t 4
9
e, CROSSROADS
URBAN
Coral Mountain Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison
TABLE 5: ALTERNATIVE 5, THE LAKE AMENITY/NO HOTEL TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates'
Land Use
ITE LU
Quantity'
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
Land Use
Code
Quantity'
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Daily
Single Family Detached
210
750 DU
0.19
0.55
0.74
0.62
0.37
0.99
9.44
Shopping Center
820
60 TSF
0.58
0.36
0.94
1.83
1.98
3.81
37.75
Lake3
417
75 AC
--
--
--
0.09
0.11
0.20
4.57
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
Internal to Retail/Lake
210
750 DU
143
(5)
413
(8)
556
(13)
465
(30)
278
(27)
743
(57)
7,080
(499)
Residential External Trips
138
405
543
435
251
686
6,581
Shopping Center
Pass -By (25%)
Internal to Residential/Lake
820
60 TSF
35
(7)
(8)
22
(7)
(5)
57
(14)
(13)
110
(28)
(28)
119
(28)
(30)
229
(56)
(58)
2,265
(566)
(580)
Shopping Center External Trips
20
10
30
54
61
115
1,119
Lake
Internal to Residential/Retail
417
75 AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
(5)
8
(6)
15
(11)
343
(232)
Lake External Trips
-
-
-
2
2
4
111
Project Subtotal
Internal Capture Subtotal
Pass -By (Shopping Center)
—
178
(13)
(7)
435
(13)
(7)
613
(26)
(14)
582
(63)
(28)
405
(63)
(28)
987
(126)
(56)
9,688
(1,311)
(566)
Project Total External Trips
158
415
573
491
314
805
7,811
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edi ion (2017).
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF =Thousand Square Feet
3 Since the current ITE does not have trip rates for a private open space amenity, ITE 9th edition rates have been uitlized.
Z: (Shared(UcJobsL12600-13000L12600(12615_partial (Excel ((12615 - TG Comparison.xlsx]Al t 5
10
12, CROSSROADS
URBAN
Coral Mountain Alternatives - Trip Generation Comparison
TABLE 6: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON SUMMARY
Land Use'
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
In I Out Total
In I Out I Total
_
Alternative 1 Trip Generation Comparison
Proposed Project (TIA)
- 496 DU SFDR, 104 DU MF, 150 RM Hotel, 60 TSF Retail,
12 AC Wave Basin Facility, 15 TSF Wave Village, 16 TSF The Farm
No Project/No Build Alternative
147
0
300
0
447
0
383
0
255
0
638
0
6,994
0
ALTERNATIVE 1 DELTA (Alternative - TIA) -147
-300
-447
-383
-255
-638
-6,994
Alternative 2 Trip Generation Comparison
Proposed Project (TIA)
- 496 DU SFDR, 104 DU MF, 150 RM Hotel, 60 TSF Retail,
12 AC Wave Basin Facility, 15 TSF Wave Village, 16 TSF The Farm
No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative
- 750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 18 Hole Golf Course
147
175
300
414
447
589
383
505
255
324
638
829
6,994
7,923
ALTERNATIVE 2 DELTA (Alternative - TIA) 28
114
142
122
69
191
929
Alternative 3 Trip Generation Comparison
Proposed Project (TIA)
- 496 DU SFDR, 104 DU MF, 150 RM Hotel, 60 TSF Retail,
12 AC Wave Basin Facility, 15 TSF Wave Village, 16 TSF The Farm
Reduced Density
- 331 DU SFDR, 69 DU MF, 100 RM Hotel, 40 TSF Retail,
12 AC Wave Basin Facility, 10 TSF Wave Village, 11 TSF The Farm
147
96
300
197
447
293
383
252
255
160
638
412
6,994
4,600
ALTERNATIVE 3 DELTA (Alternative - TIA) -51
-103
-154
-131
-95
-226
-2,394
Alternative 4 Trip Generation Comparison
Proposed Project (TIA)
- 496 DU SFDR, 104 DU MF, 150 RM Hotel, 60 TSF Retail,
12 AC Wave Basin Facility, 15 TSF Wave Village, 16 TSF The Farm
The Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative
- 600 DU SFDR, 150 RM Hotel, 18 Hole Golf Course
147
162
300
334
447
496
383
403
255
261
638
664
6,994
6,799
ALTERNATIVE 4 DELTA (Alternative - TIA) 15
34
49
20
6
26
-195
Alternative 5 Trip Generation Comparison
Proposed Project (TIA)
- 496 DU SFDR, 104 DU MF, 150 RM Hotel, 60 TSF Retail,
12 AC Wave Basin Facility, 15 TSF Wave Village, 16 TSF The Farm
The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative
750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 75 AC Lake
147
158
300
415
447
573
383
491
255
314
638
805
6,994
7,811
1.-
ALTERNATIVE 5 DELTA (Alternative - TIA) 11
115
126
108
59
167
817
DU = Dwelling Unit; RM = Occupied Room; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; AC = Acre;
SFDR = Single Family Detached Residential; MF = Multi Family Residential
Z:\Shared\UclobsL12600-13000L12600\12615_partialkExce102615 - TG Comparison.xlsx]TG_Comparison
11
URBAN
CROSSROADS