Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC Resolution 2024-007 Club at Coral Mountain EA 2019-0010 Alternative No. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 — 007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2021020310) FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 FOR THE CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT CONSISTING OF 750 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A GOLF COURSE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE; ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CASE NUMBER: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2019-0010 APPLICANT: CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT LLC WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on March 5, 2024, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2019- 0010 and its Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH #2021020310), as mandated by State law for the Club at Coral Mountain Project ("Proposed Project") consisting of a master planned community on 386 acres of a 929 acre area located south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, and east and west of Madison Street, more particularly described as: Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 764-200-076, 764-210-007, 764-210-028, 764-210-029, 766-070-003, 766-070-006, 766-070-012, 766-070-014, 766-080-001, 766-080-002,766-080-004 & 766-080-005 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 23, 2024, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site, and emailed or mailed to all interested parties who have requested notification relating to the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2024-003 recommending the City Council adopt Findings and a Statement of Overriding Consideration and certify Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 for Alternative No. 2 of the Coral Mountain Resort Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021020310) certify at a duly noticed Public Hearing on January 23, 2024; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), and Section 15367 of the State CEQA Resolution No. 2024 — 007 Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310 Project: Club at Coral Mountain Adopted: March 5, 2024 Page 2 of 5 Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of La Quinta ("City") is the Lead Agency for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR for the Coral Mountain Resort ("Previous Project") on or about February 17, 2021, and it was transmitted to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional agencies, and posted at the Riverside County Clerk's office for a 30 -day comment period where comments and participation were sought from the public and all interested and affected groups and agencies; and WHEREAS, on or about June 20, 2021, the City published a Notice of Availability ("NOX) which initiated a 45 -day public review and comment period of the Draft EIR for public review and comment between June 22 and August 6, 2021; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and other interested parties during the 45 -day public review and comment period and received 98 comments; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final EIR, consisting of the comments received during the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft EIR and a revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Proposed Project. For the purposes of this Resolution, the "EIR" shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR, together with the other sections of the Final EIR, and a CEQA Compliance Memo prepared to demonstrate consistency of the Proposed Project with Alternative No. 2 as analyzed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council denied the Previous Project, as previously proposed, on September 21, 2022, and took no action on the EIR; and WHEREAS, the EIR included complete and thorough analysis of five Alternatives, including the No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative (Alternative No. 2); and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted the Proposed Project in 2023 which includes General Plan Amendment 2023-1000, Zone Change 2023-1000, Specific Plan Amendment 2023-0003, Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005 and Development Agreement 2023-1000, which would allow the development of up to 750 residential units, a golf course and 60,000 square feet of retail commercial within the same land area as was studied in the EIR; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is consistent with Alternative No. 2 as analyzed in the EIR, and as supported by substantial evidence provided in Exhibit C of this Resolution; and Resolution No. 2024 — 007 Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310 Project: Club at Coral Mountain Adopted: March 5, 2024 Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, the EIR found that although most environmental impacts of Alternative No. 2 can be reduced to less than significant levels, impacts to aesthetic resources, air quality emissions, greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled will remain significant and unavoidable; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR for Alternative No. 2 that the Lead Agency finds are of no impact or constitute a less than significant impact and do not require mitigation are described in Sections IV and V of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR for Alternative No. 2 as potentially significant but which the Lead Agency finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the incorporation of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR are described in Section III of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR for Alternative No. 2 as potentially significant but which the Lead Agency finds cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, despite the imposition of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR are described in Section II of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VI of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, findings regarding the selection of Alternative No. 2 as being preferable to the Previous Project are described in Section VII of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program setting forth the mitigation measures to which the Lead Agency shall bind itself in connection with Alternative No. 2, is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Lead Agency has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings; and WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Lead Agency has not received any comments or additional information that constituted substantial new information requiring recirculation under Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and Resolution No. 2024 — 007 Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310 Project: Club at Coral Mountain Adopted: March 5, 2024 Page 4 of 5 WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of Alternative No. 2 have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findingsof the City Council. SECTION 2. That the City Council does adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations for Alternative No. 2 contained in Section VI I I of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herewith by this reference. SECTION 3. That the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Proposed Project attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Proposed Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. SECTION 4. That the City Council finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City Council after circulation of the Draft EIR which would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR for Alternative No. 2, based on the entirety of the record of proceedings. SECTION 5. That the documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of La Quinta or designee. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2). Resolution No. 2024 — 007 Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310 Project: Club at Coral Mountain Adopted: March 5, 2024 Page 5 of 5 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta City Council, held on March 5, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Fitzpatrick, McGarrey, Pena, Sanchez, and Mayor Evans NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: -A46U4 MONIKA RAD VA, Cit Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: WILLIAM H. IHR E, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California LINDA EVANS, Mayor City of La Quinta, California Resolution No. 2024 - 007 Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310 Project: Club at Coral Mountain Adopted: March 5, 2024 CEQA FINDINGS and STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA for the CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT General Plan Amendment 2023-1000 Zone Change 2023-1000 Specific Plan Amendment 2023-0003 Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005 Development Agreement 2023-1000 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................1 Project Description....................................................... 7 Project Components...................................................... 8 Project Construction...................................................... 9 Project Implementation................................................. 9 Responsible Agencies .................................................... 10 Project Objectives......................................................... 10 II. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ............................................ 11 Aesthetics........................................................................ 11 Effects on scenic vistas ................................................ 11 AirQuality........................................................................ 14 Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant...................................................................... 14 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................. 19 GHG Emissions that may Significantly Impact the Environment.................................................... 19 Transportation.................................................................. 25 Consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)[VMT]..................................................... 25 III. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL........................................29 Aesthetics........................................................................ 29 Impact a Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway Corridor.......................................................... 29 AirQuality........................................................................ 32 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations................................................ 32 Biological Resources.......................................................... 36 Candidate, sensitive or special status species and Riparian habitat........................................................................ 36 Movement of wildlife ..................................................... 41 Consistency with local policies and applicable habitat conservation plan ......................................................... 45 Cultural Resources............................................................ 46 Impacts to Historical Resources ...................................... 46 Impacts to Archaeological Resources ............................... 48 Impacts to human remains ............................................. 50 Geology and Soils............................................................. 53 Expose People or Structures to Effects Involving Seismic -Related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction ...... 53 Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit or Expansive Soil ..... 55 Impacts to a Unique Paleontological Resource, Site or Unique Geologic Feature............................................................... 58 Noise............................................................................... 60 Consistency with Established Noise Standards/Increase In Ambient Noise Levels................................................................ 60 Transportation.................................................................. 66 Consistency with an Applicable Plan or Policy Addressing The Circulation System..................................................................66 Effect of a Geometric Design Features ............................. 71 Emergency Access........................................................ 73 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................... 74 Impacts to Significant Tribal Cultural Resources ................ 74 IV. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ............................................... 80 Aesthetics........................................................................ 81 Effects to the Visual Character or Quality of the Site......... 81 Light and Glare............................................................ 82 AirQuality........................................................................ 86 Consistency with implementation of applicable air quality plans and standards........................................................................86 Create objectionable odors ............................................. 86 Energy............................................................................. 87 Consumption of Energy Resources .................................. 87 Consistency with a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency.......................................................... 88 Geology and Soils............................................................. 90 Direct or Indirect Effects Involving Strong Seismic Shaki ng/Landsl ides ..................................................... 90 Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil ...................................... 90 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................. 91 Consistency with Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation .... 91 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................ 92 Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Material, Including Accidental Release.........................................................92 Effect on an Emergency Response Plan ............................ 93 Riskof Wildfires............................................................ 93 Other Potential Hazards....................................................... 93 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................. 95 Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements................................................................95 Effect on of Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge............................................................. 95 Potential Impacts from Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns....................................................................... 96 Inundation by Flooding, Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow ......... 96 Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan ...................................... 96 Land Use Consistency with Any Land Use Plan, Policy or Regulation .. 101 Noise............................................................................... 103 Generation of Ground Borne Vibration ............................ 103 Public Services.................................................................. 104 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................. 105 Require or Result in Construction of New or Expanded Facilities for Water, Wastewater, Drainage or Utilities ........... 105 Sufficiency of Water Supplies ......................................... 107 Wastewater Treatment System Capacity .......................... 107 Generate Excess Solid Waste .......................................... 107 Comply with Statues and Regulations Related to Solid Waste.................................................................. 107 V. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTDS HAVING NO IMPACT......................................................... 115 Biological Resources........................................................ 115 Federally protected wetlands ......................................... 115 Geology and Soils............................................................. 115 Effects Involving Rupture from Known Fault .................... 115 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................ 115 Hazardous Materials within 1/4 mile of a school ................. 115 Sites with Known Hazardous Materials Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ................................ 116 Effects Having No Impact and Not Analyzed Further in DraftEIR......................................................................... 116 VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE ANALYZED THE DEIR AND REJECTED ............................................... 117 Alternative 1: No Project/No Build ....................................... 117 Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative ........................... 118 Alternative 4: The Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative .................... 119 Alternative 5: The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative............ 120 Additional Findings Regarding the Environmentally Superior Alternative....................................................................... 121 VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE 2 SELECTED AS PREFERRABLE TO THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED PROJECT........................................................................ 123 Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements ..................... 123 VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ........... 124 IX. FINDINGS REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR .. 130 iv Final EIR SCH No. 2021020310 GPA 2023-1000, ZC 2023-1000, SP 2023-0003, TTM 2023-0005, DA 2023-1000 The City of La Quinta (City) prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq, as amended). At the public hearing on the Coral Mountain Resort Project on September 21, 2022, the City Council denied the project applications, primarily based on its determination that the proposed Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to allow the Wave Basin and other proposed Tourist Commercial uses at the project site would not be compatible with the surrounding residential communities, and thus would not be in the best interests of the City and its residents. As a result, the applicant revised the proposed project to align with the existing entitlements for the site, including the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan (SP03-067) and the existing Zoning and General Plan land use designations, which was analyzed in the EIR as Alternative 2. The revised proposal is known as the Club at Coral Mountain, and is consistent with the existing Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Open Space (Recreation) land use designations that currently exist on the project site. The Club at Coral Mountain no longer proposes a Tourist Commercial designation or uses. I. INTRODUCTION The Club at Coral Mountain project includes a Neighborhood Commercial corner on approximately 7.7 acres allowing up to 60,000 square feet of retail development, an 18 -hole golf course on approximately 187.5 acres, and up to 750 residential units on 191.8 acres (the "Revised Project"). While the Revised Project requires technical amendments to the General Plan land use map and Zoning map to modify the layout of the golf course and low-density residential acreages, the Revised Project contains the same land uses on the same property as Alternative 2 in the EIR and the existing General Plan land use and Zoning map, with substantially the same permitted development. Therefore, in connection with approving the Revised Project, the City Council makes these findings in support of its certification of the EIR, its adoption of Alternative 2 as the City's Preferred Alternative, and its adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. To avoid confusion, when these findings refer to the previously proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project, it will use the term "Previously Proposed Project." In order to implement the Revised Project, the applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2023-1000), Zone Change (ZC 2023- 1 1000), Specific Plan Amendment (SP 2023-0003), Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2023-0005), and Development Agreement (DA 2023-1000), as a part of the entitlement process. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a Draft EIR for a 30 -day comment period between February 17, 2021 and March 19, 2021. The NOP review period was extended until April 2, 2021 in order to include the Development Agreement in the project description pursuant to Article 2.5 of Chapter 4, Division 1, Title 7 of the State California Government Code. The comment period was extended to allow public comments until April 2, 2021. The NOP included an evaluation of the environmental topics that will and will not be analyzed within the Draft EIR. The evaluation was prepared using Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse and to all responsible and trustee agencies, and to interested parties. Issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP were considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and comments received are contained in Appendix A of the EIR. Based on the preliminary review conducted by the City and responses to the NOP, the City found that the Project could have potentially significant environmental effects, including effects on the following: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Noise, Public Services, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. In accordance with CEQA, the City determined the Project could have potentially significant impacts and determined that an environmental impact report should be prepared. The Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a 45 -day public review period from June 22, 2021 to August 6, 2021. The Final EIR for the Project consists of the Draft EIR, revisions to the Draft EIR, a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and a supplemental CEQA Compliance Memo addressing the consistency of the Revised Project with Alternative 2 in the EIR. A copy of the Final EIR was made available for public review and provided to all parties commenting on the Draft EIR at least 10 days prior to certification. The Final EIR evaluated potential effects for the following environmental areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas 2 Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. The Final EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects for the Previously Proposed Project related to Aesthetics (scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, light/glare), Air Quality (construction -source and operational -source emissions), Biological Resources (sensitive species, sensitive habitat); Cultural Resources (historical resources, known and unknown cultural resources during project excavation); Geology and Soils (seismic -related ground failure, soil erosion), Greenhouse Gas Emissions (generation of GHG emissions and conflicts with applicable plans), Noise (temporary construction noise and ground borne vibration, operational and traffic noise); Transportation (VMT, plan consistency, construction traffic, impacts related to special events); and Tribal Cultural Resources (known and unknown tribal cultural resources). The Final EIR determined that the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Wave Basin would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures throughout implementation of the project, with the exception of the significant and unavoidable impacts discussed in Section III below, which were Aesthetics (scenic vistas) and GHG emissions. For the Revised Project and Alternative 2, the Final EIR also identified potentially significant environmental effects related to Aesthetics (scenic vistas, scenic resources), Air Quality (construction -source and operational - source emissions), Biological Resources (sensitive species, sensitive habitat); Cultural Resources (historical resources, known and unknown cultural resources during project excavation); Geology and Soils (seismic -related ground failure, soil erosion), Greenhouse Gas Emissions (generation of GHG emissions), Noise (temporary construction noise and ground borne vibration, operational and traffic noise); Transportation (VMT, plan consistency, construction traffic); and Tribal Cultural Resources (known and unknown tribal cultural resources). The Final EIR determined that the potentially significant environmental impacts for Alternative 2 have been reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures throughout implementation of the project, with the exception of the significant and unavoidable impacts discussed in Section III below (scenic vistas, air quality impacts from operational -source emissions, GHG emissions, and VMT). As described in the CEQA Compliance Memo prepared for the Revised Project, the Revised Project's impacts, required 3 mitigation measures and significant and unavoidable impacts are substantially the same as for Alternative 2. For the Previously Proposed Project and for the Revised Project and Alternative 2, the Final EIR identified no impact or less than significant impacts related to Agriculture and Forest Resources, Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Public Services, Population and Housing, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the City of La Quinta, as lead agency for this project, prepare written findings for any identified significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate, avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), the City finds that the Revised Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics (adverse effect on scenic vistas), air quality (operational source emissions), greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation (VMT) even after all feasible mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR are implemented. The City finds that for each of the significant effects identified in the Final EIR, other than the aesthetic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation impacts identified above, changes or alterations (project design features and mitigation measures) have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or substantially lessen each of the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. The City further finds that the impacts of the Revised Project are substantially the same as the impacts of Alternative 2 analyzed and disclosed in both the Draft EIR and Final EIR. Finally, the City 59 finds that neither the Previously Proposed Project nor any of the other alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR will feasibly reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Revised Project because: (i) the Previously Proposed Project and the alternatives with Tourist Commercial Uses (Alternatives 3 and 4) are unacceptable to the City Council on policy grounds making them infeasible, (ii) Alternative 1 (No Project/No Build) would fail to meet any of the basic project objectives, would be inconsistent with the General Plan, and is unacceptable to the City Council and thus infeasible, and (iii) Alternative 5 (Lake Amenity) would fail to substantially reduce any of the significant and unavoidable effects of the Revised Project and is unacceptable to the City Council on policy grounds due to the increased use of water. The significant effects (impacts) of the Revised Project and mitigation measures are stated fully in the Final EIR. The rationale for these findings for each impact is discussed below. After consideration of an EIR, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. For purposes of CEQA and for the Findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City's Findings and determinations consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum: • The City's General Plan, as amended, and all environmental documents relating thereto; • The Draft EIR for the Project, including all Appendices thereto and all supporting materials referenced therein; • The Final EIR for the Project, including all comments on the Draft EIR, all responses thereto, the supplemental CEQA Compliance Memo for the Revised Project and Alternative 2, and all supporting materials referenced therein; • The draft Specific Plan and all other application materials relating to the Project, as amended; • All testimony and written comments received prior to or at any public hearing relating to the Project, including the March 30, 2021 public scoping meeting, September 28, 2021 joint Planning Commission and City Council study session, the Planning Commission hearings on March 5 221 2022, April 12, 2022, April 26, 2022, and January 23, 2024, and the City Council hearings on June 7, 2022, July 5, 2022, September 21, 2022, and March 5, 2024; • The groundwater management plan documents submitted to the City on April 23, 2022, which include (1) the Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2021), (2) the CVWD Water Supply Assessment Fact Sheet (updated March 22, 2022), (3) the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update - Compiled- Final (adopted December 2021), (4) Indio Subbasin Annual Report Workshop PowerPoint (March 17, 2022), and (5) Indio Subbasin Annual Report - Final (February 2022). • All reports of the City relating to the Project, including reports submitted to the City by expert consultants, and all supporting materials referenced therein; • All materials submitted by the project applicant relating to the Project, including reports submitted by expert consultants and all supporting materials referenced therein, which include without limitation the supplemental noise memoranda supplied by Meridian Consultants and Urban Crossroads on April 25, 2022 and April 26, 2022, respectively, the letter from Urban Crossroads dated May 25, 2022, and the letter from James Vaughn dated August 22, 2022 and all expert reports and other exhibits attached thereto; • The City staff reports relating to short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) dated March 1, 2022 and June 7, 2022, and the email from James Vaughn dated June 7, 2022, submitting these reports to be included in the record of proceedings for the Project; • These Findings made by the City and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") adopted by the City for the Project; • All final City Staff reports relating to the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and/or the Project; • All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other planning documents relating to the Project, the Draft EIR or the Final EIR, prepared by the City, consultants to the County, or responsible or trustee agencies, or submitted to the City prior to the close of the City Council hearing on the Project; 0 • All prior environmental impact reports and studies related to the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03-067; and • All matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to the City's policies, guidelines and regulations. The official custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings is: City of La Quinta Planning Division 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone: 760-777-7000 Hours: Monday - Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Copies of all these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City's decision is based, are, and at all relevant times have been, available upon request at the offices of the City, the custodian for such documents. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project area encompasses 929 acres that are currently a part of the "Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03-067", which includes the area south of Avenue 58 and east and west of Madison Street. The area east of Madison Street encompasses the Andalusia Country Club property and is not being affected by the Revised Project. The area west of Madison Street is currently vacant and is the area to be developed by the Revised Project uses. Amendment V of Specific Plan 03-067 affects only the areas west of Madison Street and is being processed to adjust the location and layout of the open space -recreation and low-density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of the existing land use designations; to make minor changes to the development standards and permitted uses within those land use designations; and to amend the Design Guidelines to allow a contemporary style of architecture. The applicant is requesting approval of the following entitlements, which if approved, would allow for and govern the development of the project site: • General Plan Amendment- A General Plan Amendment (GPA 2023-1000) will amend the current General Plan land use map to make minor adjustments to the layout of the golf course and low-density residential acreages but does not make any changes to the type or density of allowed development under the existing General Plan. • Zone Change- The proposed Zone Change (ZC 2023-1000) will revise the existing zoning map to modify the layout of the golf course and low- density residential acreages, consistent with General Plan Amendment described above, with no material changes to the permitted development. • Specific Plan Amendment- The Specific Plan Amendment (SP 2023- 0003) constitutes Amendment V of Specific Plan 03-067 and is being processed to adjust the location and the layout of open space -recreation and low-density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of these existing land use designations, as well as to make changes to the permitted uses and Design Guidelines for the portion of the Specific Plan located west of Madison Street to accommodate a more contemporary architectural style. No changes to land use designations, densities or intensities of uses, or development standards or guidelines are proposed for the lands east of Madison Street. • Tentative Tract Map- The Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2023-0005) subdivides the property into seven (7) smaller parcels for financing and development phasing but does not include the creation of individual lots for development. Future TTMs may be filed with each phase of development as necessary to implement the project. • Development Agreement- The Development Agreement (DA 2023- 1000) would establish the responsibilities of the applicant and the City, including vesting the project approvals, establishing standards authorizing vacation rentals permitted in the existing Specific Plan, and setting financial obligations of the development. PROJECT COMPONENTS The Project build out components include: • Up to 750 single family attached and detached dwellings and associated recreational and golf amenities; • Up to 60,000 square feet of publicly accessible neighborhood commercial building space; and • An 18 -hole golf course. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION According to the Development Agreement, project construction will occur in five (5) primary residential development phases plus the neighborhood commercial center and the golf course. Each primary residential development phase is anticipated to be constructed within approximately two years from commencement and may be broken into subphases in response to market conditions and consumer demand. Phased development will be accompanied by the orderly extension of circulation and parking facilities, public utilities, and infrastructure in accordance with the final conditions of approval for the project. Development of all project uses will require implementing approvals, including future tentative tract maps and site development permits, as described below. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Should the project be approved, implementation would include the following entitlement processes: Tentative Tract Map (TTM) - In addition to the TTM which is part of the initial entitlements, future TTMs are intended to implement the project and subdivide the property into smaller lots for development. TTMs may be filed with each phase of development as necessary. Each TTM will require review by the Planning Commission. Site Development Permit (SDP): SDPs will be required by the City for final approval of landscape design, architectural design, and site plans for each phase of development. These may be processed concurrent with or subsequent to other entitlement approvals. Each SDP will require public hearings before the Planning Commission. Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Uses that require a CUP shall be processed in accordance with Section 9.210.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES The following are anticipated responsible agencies which may rely on the Final EIR for their discretionary approvals required to implement the project: 9 Imperial Irrigation District Approval or certification related to any other applicable general order, rule, or regulation concerning utility modification, conveyance, or delivery. Coachella Valley Water District Review and approval of the design and plans for the project's domestic water and wastewater systems. Colorado Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 7) Approval may include but is not limited to: (1) General Construction Stormwater Permit; (2) Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan; and (3) Submittal of a Recycled Water Report for the use of recycled water as a dust control measure for construction. Additionally, approval of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act may be required to verify compliance with water quality requirements (waste discharge and water quality). PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Revised Project has identified the following objectives, which include revisions to the original objectives for the Previously Proposed Project to respond to input received from the City Council when the Previously Proposed Project was rejected: • To implement a plan that recognizes and responds to the natural and aesthetic character of the property. • To create a private residential resort community with a variety of interrelated and mutually supportive commercial and recreational land uses that will also generate transient occupancy and sales tax revenues in order to enhance the City's economic base and long-term financial stability. • To promote walkability and non -motorized connectivity as an integral part of the project design, including establishing residential neighborhoods that are linked through multi -use trails that connect neighborhoods throughout the project. • To maintain the overall density previously included for this property in the Andalusia Specific Plan and to remain substantially consistent with the permitted uses allowed under the existing General Plan land use designations. • To provide a variety of open space and recreational uses (active and passive). • To design a planned community that compliments existing development in the surrounding area and is compatible with the surrounding environment. 10 II. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS This section identifies the significant unavoidable impacts that require a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued by the City upon approval of the Revised Project. Based on the analysis contained in the Final EIR, the following impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation have been determined to be significant and unavoidable, after all feasible mitigation measures have been considered and adopted. These unavoidable impacts are overridden by the project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below. Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of La Quinta finds that, for each of the following significant effects, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid these significant effects on the environment to the maximum extent feasible. Nevertheless, the City of La Quinta further finds that for each of the significant effects, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR. However, the City finds that with respect to the significant and unavoidable impacts described below, specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as more fully described in Section VII below, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. These findings are explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. AESTHETICS Effects on scenic vistas. The Revised Project will result in potentially significant direct impacts to scenic views and implementation of all feasible mitigation measures will not reduce the impacts to a less than significant impact because development of the project site will result in obstructed and partially obstructed views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. The project's perimeter walls, landscaping, and structures will partially obstruct views of these scenic resources, which is considered a significant impact. To reduce project impacts to scenic vistas to the greatest extent feasible the project will implement Mitigation Measure AES -1, which requires the perimeter walls to be setback from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 11 public rights-of-way by a minimum average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC), which shall be confirmed through the City's review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape plans, and Mitigation Measure AES -2, which requires a minimum setback of 75 feet between any residential structure and the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of- way, (refer to Section IV below). However, impacts associated with scenic vistas cannot be reduced to less than significant levels and will remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures: The project includes mitigation measures in the MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings. AES -1 The perimeter walls around the low density residential planning areas shall be setback from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way by a minimum average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC), which shall be confirmed through the City's review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape plans to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. AES -2 All residential structures shall be setback by a minimum of 75 feet from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. Finding The City Council of the City of La Quinta finds direct impacts to the scenic resources of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains from development of the project site with perimeter walls, landscaping and structures, to be significant. Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of La Quinta finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which mitigate or avoid these significant effects on the environment to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, mitigation measures AES -1 and AES -2 will increase setbacks of the perimeter walls and residential structures to reduce impacts on views of these scenic resources to the maximum extent feasible. The City of La Quinta further finds that for this significant effect, any development of the site consistent with the City General Plan would have 12 comparable impacts on views of these scenic vistas, and for this reason, finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives, if any, identified in the Final EIR. In fact, the EIR did not identify any mitigation measures or project alternatives that would further reduce the project's unavoidable impact on views of these scenic vistas except the no project/no development alternative, which is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and deemed unacceptable by the City Council, as explained in more detail in Section VI below. Furthermore, the City finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project, including but not limited to generating transient occupancy and sales tax revenues to enhance the City's economic base and ensure its long-term financial stability, outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as more fully described in Section VII below, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. These findings are further explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. Facts in Support of Finding The Revised Project will result in potentially significant direct impacts to views of Coral Mountain. As shown in the line -of -sight analysis and visual simulations included as Exhibits 4.1-4 through 4.1-13, the perimeter walls, landscaping, and structures will obstruct some views of these scenic resources from the surrounding roadways and neighborhoods. However, these perimeter improvements will ensure that the Project is visually consistent and compatible with the surrounding residential communities, which also have such walls and landscaping. Moreover, these perimeter improvements would be required by the City for any permitted development of the site. Accordingly, none of the project alternatives, other than the no project/no development alternative, would substantially reduce or avoid this impact of the Revised Project. While these impacts will be mitigated by AES -1 and AES - 2 to the maximum extent feasible, the impacts are considered significant and unavoidable because the perimeter improvements associated with development of the project property will result in obstructed and partially obstructed views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Revised Project's impacts on views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains are considered to be the same as the impacts under the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2 because all three scenarios include the same required perimeter fencing and landscaping, and all would be subject to the same enhanced setback requirements. Although the Previously Proposed Project included higher structures in the center of the project site, the previously proposed wave basin, hotel, and other proposed structures in 13 Planning Area III would not have significantly impacted views of Coral Mountain or the Santa Rosa Mountains due to the distance and intervening topography and improvements between this portion of the Previously Proposed Project and the viewing locations from the surrounding roadways and communities (see Draft EIR pp. 4.1-22 through 4.1-45). AIR QUALITY Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant The Previously Proposed Project's construction emissions (without mitigation) are shown in Table 4.2-5 of the Draft EIR and would exceed SCAQMD's regional threshold for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during Phase 1 construction activities. Although Table 4.2-5 of the Draft EIR was prepared for the Previously Proposed Project, the construction emissions for the Revised Project and Alternative 2 are considered to be the same as for the Previously Proposed Project because all three scenarios involve disturbing and developing the same project site and the entire site would be developed (See Draft EIR at p. 7-17 and CEQA Compliance Memo pp. 13-14). Construction phases involving paving and architectural coating are sources of VOC and NOX emissions. The exceedance is caused by the overlapping of paving and architectural coating assumed in the analysis. The VOC emissions generated would therefore exceed SCAQMD thresholds for cumulatively considerable net increases in criteria pollutants, and thus result in significant impacts requiring mitigation. Operational -source emissions (without mitigation) for the Previously Proposed Project are shown in Table 4.2-7 of the Draft EIR and would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for emissions of VOCs during Phase 3 activities. In addition, the previously proposed special events could cause cumulatively considerable net increases in VOC and nitrous oxide (NOx) that exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance without mitigation, as shown in Table 4.2-9 of the Draft EIR, which would also constitute a significant adverse effect. Like Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR, the Revised Project would have increased VOC and NOx emissions due to the 13% increase in average daily vehicle trips . Urban Crossroads prepared a supplemental Air Quality and GHG assessment to quantify and confirm this increase, which also updated the analysis with the 2022 CalEEMod program and the updated SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds published in March of 2023. Based on this updated analysis, the Revised Project's VOC and NOx emissions would exceed 14 the updated SCAQMD thresholds (See CEQA Compliance Memo, at pp. 13-15, and Appendix A). Project Design Features. The PDFs are site design elements and operations recognized by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) for providing project -level emissions reductions through a reduced automobile use (reduced vehicle miles traveled), energy efficiency, and other area source reductions, which will be enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement. The following PDFs apply: pedestrian connections, mixture of land uses, walkability and connectivity design elements, commute trip reduction program, telecommuting and alternative work schedules, employer-sponsored shuttles, compliance with 2019 Title 24 standards, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445, on-site photovoltaic electricity supply (15%), and waste diversion per AB 939. Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential project specific and cumulative air quality impacts regarding criteria pollutants, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: AQ -1: During Phase 1 of construction, the paving installation activity shall not overlap with the architectural coating (building painting) activity. That prohibition shall be included on all building plans. AQ -2: For equipment greater than 150 horsepower (> 150 HP), the Construction Contractor shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. AQ -3: The project will require the use of low VOC paints for re- painting and maintenance of exterior structures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 (not to exceed 50 grams per liter VOCs for interior and exterior building envelope re- painting). Under federal and state law, SCAQMD is under a 15 legal obligation to enforce air pollution regulations. These regulations are primarily meant to ensure that the surrounding (or ambient) air meets federal and state air quality standards. The South Coast AQMD also has broad authority to regulate toxic and hazardous air emissions, and these regulations are enforced in the same manner as those which pertain to the ambient air quality standards. The following standard regulatory requirements and best available control measures shall appear on all project grading plans, construction specifications and bid documents, and the City shall ensure that such language is incorporated prior to issuance of any development permits: BACM AQ -1: The contractor shall adhere to applicable measures contained in Table 1 of Rule 403 including, but not limited to: • All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are limited to 15 miles per hour or less. BACM AQ -2: The following measures shall be incorporated into project plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 (3): • Only "Low -Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)" paints (no more than 50 gram/liter (g/L) of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used. BACM AQ -3: The project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development. 16 Finding• Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the significant air quality effects related to criteria pollutants described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, implementation of the PDFs, mitigation measures AQ -1 through AQ -3, and BACM AQ -1 through BACM AQ - 3, as described and recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval, will reduce construction and operational priority pollutants to the maximum extent feasible. The City of La Quinta further finds that despite implementation of all mitigation and PDF's identified in the Draft EIR, operational emissions of VOC and NOx will remain a significant effect of the Revised Project, and specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives, if any, identified in the Final EIR. In fact, the EIR did not identify any mitigation measures or project alternatives that would further reduce the Revised Project's unavoidable operational air quality emissions except the no project/no development alternative, which is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and deemed unacceptable by the City Council, as explained in more detail in Section VI below. Furthermore, the City finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Revised Project, including but not limited to generating transient occupancy and sales tax revenues to enhance the City's economic base and ensure its long-term financial stability, outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as more fully described in Section VII below, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. These findings are further explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. Facts in Support of Finding: Construction phases involving paving and architectural coating are sources of VOC and NOX emissions, and as stated above, would exceed SCAQMD's regional threshold of significance during Phase 1 construction activities without mitigation. However, through the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ -1, the overlap of these activities will be prevented, such that it will avoid simultaneous emissions of these pollutants and, therefore, peak emissions will remain below the established thresholds and the 17 associated impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels (Draft EIR Table 4.2-6). Additionally, MM AQ -2 would decrease localized emissions and further reduce construction impacts in compliance with the EPA and CARB Tier 3 emissions standards, which are aimed at reducing motor vehicle emissions, including nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that construction emissions from the Revised Project are below applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds, and thus do not constitute a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant. Operational -source emissions for the Revised Project, however, will not be reduced to less than significant levels after implementation of PDFs and MM - AQ -3 because emissions of VOC and NOx will exceed the updated 2023 SCAQMD thresholds. However, Table 7 in the CEQA Compliance Memo (p. 14) also shows that the Previously Proposed Project would also exceed the revised SCAQMD thresholds for these criteria pollutants and would have greater NOx emissions than the Revised Project. Therefore, the operational air quality impacts of the Revised Project are not considered to be substantially more severe than analyzed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and are the same as for Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR. The following PDFs apply to the Revised Project: pedestrian connections, mixture of residential and commercial land uses, walkability and connectivity design elements, telecommuting and alternative work schedules, compliance with Title 24 standards, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445, on-site photovoltaic electricity supply (15%), and waste diversion per AB 939. In addition, MM AQ -3 establishes a paint VOC content limit of 50 grams per liter to perform interior and exterior re -painting during the life of the project. The PDFs are site design elements and operations and will be enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement. While these PDFs and mitigation will not reduce operational air quality emissions to a less than significant level, they do substantially reduce such emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The City Council also reviewed and considered all correspondence and comments concerning potential air quality impacts, including the letters submitted by Mitchell Tsai, SWAPE, and Bruce Bauer. The City Council finds that these comments lack merit and fail to provide any substantial evidence of any new or more severe significant adverse air quality effects, beyond what is described above and in the Draft EIR, or of any inaccuracies in the Draft EIR or technical studies. In particular, the City Council rejects the assertion that it has failed to properly evaluate air quality effects and/or adopt all feasible mitigation measures prior to making the findings set forth above. The City Council finds that all potential air quality effects of the project have been Um properly evaluated in the Final EIR and technical appendices, and that the project design features evaluated in that analysis have properly been made enforceable by the City through the project Development Agreement and conditions of approval. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GHG Emissions that may Significantly Impact the Environment. The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of both the Revised Project and the Previously Proposed Project would exceed the applicable annual threshold of significance of 3.65 MTCO2e/service population before accounting for implementation of all feasible emission reduction measures, including both enforceable Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measure GHG-1. Specifically, the Draft EIR disclosed that the Previously Proposed Project would generate a total of 17,270.47 MTCO2e per year, which divided by the service population of 2,672 would be 6.46 MTCO2e/service population (see Draft EIR Table 4.7-7). The Revised Project would generate a reduced total of 14,978.42 MTCO2e per year, but when divided by the reduced service population of 2,228, the Revised Project would have a slightly increased MTCO2e/service population of 6.72 (see CEQA Compliance Memo, at pp. 33-35 and Appendix A). While implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would offset the GHG emissions generated by the Revised Project that are in excess of the applicable threshold, by reducing GHG emissions elsewhere through the purchase of carbon credits, it would not change the actual GHG emissions levels of the project itself. In addition, the purchase of carbon credits has not been widely used as mitigation for GHG emissions for residential and resort projects in the Coachella Valley, and therefore, the City Council finds that there is some uncertainty as to whether the purchase of carbon credits adequately, feasibly, and fully mitigates the project's impacts relating to GHG emissions to a less than significant level. Accordingly, the City finds that the Revised Project's potential impacts relating to GHG emissions remain significant and unavoidable and would be similar but slightly greater than the Previously Proposed Project on a per service population basis. The City further finds that the impacts of the Revised Project would be the same as under Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR, and would not be substantially more severe than would occur for the Previously Proposed Project. Project Design Features: 19 The Specific Plan incorporates the following design features for promoting energy efficiency and sustainability, which shall be enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement and Specific Plan: • Pedestrian connections shall be provided to surrounding areas consistent with the City's General Plan. Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. 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. • 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 retail and office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her trip needs. A description of diverse uses for urban and suburban areas is provided below • The project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Improved street network characteristics within a neighborhood include street accessibility, usually measured in terms of average block size, proportion of four- way intersections, or number of intersections per square mile. Design is also measured in terms of 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. • Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks. • The project will design building shells and building components, such as windows; roof systems: electrical and lighting systems: and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards which are expected to result in 30% less energy use for non-residential buildings and 53% less energy use for residential use due to lighting upgrades. 20 • The project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development. • Using electricity generated from photovoltaic (PV) systems displaces electricity demand which would ordinarily be supplied by the local utility. Since zero GHG emissions are associated with electricity generation from PV systems, the GHG emissions reductions from this PDF are equivalent to the emissions that would have been produced had electricity been supplied by the local utility. A minimum of 15% of the project's electricity demand will be generated on-site. • In order to reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills, the project would be required to implement a 65% waste diversion as required by AB 939. • Specified use of Energy Star appliances. • Installation of water -efficient plumbing fixtures. • Installation of tankless water heater systems. • Installation of light -emitting diode (LED) technology within homes. • Use of recycled water for common area landscape irrigation. • Use of drought -tolerant plants in landscape design. • Installation of water -efficient irrigation systems with smart sensor controls. • Lighting sources contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that powers these lights. Public street and area lighting includes: streetlights, pedestrian pathway lights, area lighting for parks and parking lots, and outdoor lighting around public buildings. • Lighting design should consider the amount of light required for the area intended to be lit. Lumens are the measure of the amount of light perceived by the human eye. Different light fixtures have different efficacies or the amount of lumens produced per watt of power supplied. This is different than efficiency, and it is important that lighting improvements are based on maintaining the appropriate lumens per area when applying this measure. Installing more efficacious lamps will use less electricity while producing the same amount of light, and therefore reduces the associated indirect GHG emissions. Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts concerning GHG emissions, the following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: 21 GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant shall purchase a minimum of 72,000 MTCO2e credits (2,400 MTCO2e per year for 30 years). The purchase of carbon credits must be made from a CARB-approved carbon registry with independent third -party verification. Examples of approved registries include the American Carbon Registry, Climate Action Reserve, and Verra. The applicant shall submit documentation of the offset purchase to the City demonstrating that it mitigates a minimum of 2,400 MTCO2e per year (72,000 MTCO2e over a 30 -year period), prior to any occupancy of the site. Alternatively, the Project Applicant may submit a GHG reduction plan to the City for approval that achieves an equal level of GHG reduction outlined herein. The GHG plan must include enforceable actions that reduce GHG emissions to at or below the total mitigated values presented herein. Finding: The City Council of the City of La Quinta finds that impacts associated with GHG emissions generated by the Revised Project are considered significant. Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of La Quinta finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid these significant effects on the environment to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the project design features listed above, including the project's mix of complimentary uses and enhanced connectivity that reduce vehicle miles traveled, and the increased energy and water efficiency measures, substantially reduce the project's GHG emissions. In addition, mitigation measure GHG-1 requires the purchase of carbon credits to partially offset the GHG emissions that will be generated by the project. Nevertheless, the City of La Quinta further finds that while implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would offset the GHG emissions generated by the project that are in excess of the applicable threshold, by reducing GHG emissions elsewhere through the purchase of carbon credits, it would not change the actual GHG emissions levels of the project itself. In addition, the purchase of carbon credits has not been widely used as mitigation for GHG emissions for residential and resort projects in the Coachella Valley, and therefore, the City finds that there is some uncertainty as to whether the purchase of carbon credits adequately and fully mitigates the project's impacts relating to GHG emissions to a less than significant level. Accordingly, the City finds that these specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other 22 considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives, if any, identified in the Final EIR. In fact, the EIR did not identify any mitigation measures that could feasibly reduce GHG emissions more effectively than the PDFs and Mitigation Measure GHG-1. Only the No Project and Reduced Density alternatives (Alternatives No. 1 and No. 3) would further substantially reduce or avoid the project's impact regarding GHG emissions, and the City finds that these alternatives are unacceptable because they will not generate sufficient transient occupancy and sales tax revenue to enhance the City's economic base and ensure its long-term financial stability, and because these alternatives would require reducing the number of residential homes, both of which the City Council finds unacceptable, as described in more detail in Section VI below. Furthermore, the City finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Revised Project, including but not limited to generating transient occupancy and sales tax revenues to enhance the City's economic base to ensure its long-term financial stability, outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as more fully described in Section VII below, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. These findings are further explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. Facts in Support of Finding: The City of La Quinta relied on the SCAQMD's project level efficiency threshold methodology for determining the significance of a project's GHG emissions. Specifically, the City evaluated SCAQMD's project level 2020 target of no more than 4.8 metric tons of CO2 emissions (MTCO2e) per service population (SP) per year and its 2030 target of no more than 2.88 MTCO2e/SP per year, and determined that for the project's proposed 2026 buildout year, the appropriate threshold of significance was interpolated at 3.65 MTCO2e/SP per year (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.7-9 through 4.7-10). The project emissions were calculated for all sources of emissions, including construction emissions and operational emissions. For the Previously Proposed Project, the GHG calculations also included the maximum number of special events allowed per year. The Draft EIR disclosed that the Previously Proposed Project would generate a total of 17,270.47 MTCO2e per year, which divided by the service population of 2,672 would be 6.46 MTCO2e/service population (see Draft EIR Table 4.7-7). The Revised Project would generate a reduced total of 14,978.42 MTCO2e per year, but when divided by the reduced service population of 2,228, the Revised Project would have a slightly increased MTCO2e/service population of 6.72. While these emissions levels are substantially reduced through implementation of the PDFs identified above, emissions levels would still exceed the 3.65 MTCO2e/SP per year. Therefore, the Draft EIR identified Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requiring the purchase of 23 sufficient carbon credits sufficient to reduce the project's total GHG emissions per SP to below the 3.65 MTCO2e/year threshold. (see Draft EIR at pp. 4.7- 13 through 4.7-20). However, as stated above, the purchase of carbon credits offsets the project's GHG emissions but does not eliminate the actual GHG emissions that will be generated by the project. In addition, the purchase of carbon credits has not been widely used as mitigation for GHG emissions for residential and resort projects in the Coachella Valley, and therefore, to ensure the maximum disclosure of this impact, the City finds that there is uncertainty as to whether the purchase of carbon credits adequately, feasibly, and fully mitigates the project's impacts relating to GHG emissions to a less than significant level. As a result, the City considers the Revised Project's GHG emissions to be significant and unavoidable, and the City is adopting a statement of overriding considerations as described above and in in Section VII below. The City Council reviewed and considered the Draft EIR comments relating to GHG emissions, including Comments 52-k, 79-h, 79-i and 79-q (which is a letter from SWAPE attached as Exhibit A to Comment letter 79). The City Council finds that these comments lack merit and fail to provide any substantial evidence of any new or more severe significant adverse effects relating to GHG emissions, beyond what is described above and in the Draft EIR, or of any inaccuracies in the Draft EIR or technical studies. Rather, the City Council finds Final EIR Responses 52-k, 79-h, 79-I and 79-q persuasive, and hereby adopts those responses and incorporates them into the City Council's findings, analysis and conclusions regarding GHG emissions. The City Council also reviewed and considered all subsequent correspondence and comments received after release of the Final EIR, including the letters submitted by Mitchell Tsai, SWAPE, and Bruce Bauer. The City Council finds that these comments lack merit and fail to provide any substantial evidence of any new or more severe significant adverse effects relating to GHG emissions, beyond what is described above and in the Draft EIR, or of any inaccuracies in the Draft EIR or technical studies. In particular, the City Council rejects the assertion in the April 12, 2022 letter from Mitchell Tsai and April 6, 2022 letter from SWAPE that the City has failed to adopt all feasible mitigation measures prior to making the findings set forth above regarding GHG emissions. Rather, the City Council accepts as accurate and persuasive the supplemental expert letter from Haseeb Qureshi at Urban Crossroads, dated May 25, 2022, which explains that all feasible GHG mitigation set forth in the comment letters referenced above, or their equivalent, have been adopted and imposed on the project, either as mitigation measures or enforceable project design features. The City Council finds that all other GHG mitigation measures identified in these comment letters, including the 24 measures set forth in the April 6, 2022 letter from SWAPE, will not substantially reduce the project's remaining GHG emissions because all applicable and feasible measures from this list have been incorporated into the project. This conclusion is based on the supplemental expert letter from Mr. Qureshi, which is hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. While the above -referenced comments and responses were made with respect to the Previously Proposed Project, nothing contained therein provides any substantial evidence that the Revised Project will have any new or substantially more severe effects than disclosed and analyzed in the Draft EIR. As shown in the supplemental GHG analysis conducted by Urban Crossroads and discussed in the CEQA Compliance Memo, the Revised Project will have the same GHG emissions as Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR and will have reduced overall GHG emissions than the Previously Proposed Project with only a marginal increase in annual emissions per service population (see CEQA Compliance Memo, at pp. 33-35 and Appendix A). TRANSPORTATION Consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) VMT . Travel demand modeling of VMT for both the Revised Project and the Previously Proposed Project, based upon City of La Quinta guidelines, indicates a potential impact. Residential VMT for the Previously Proposed Project was calculated to be 11.64 VMT/resident, which exceeds the City's threshold of 15% below the existing Citywide home-based VMT/resident of 12.98 (meaning the threshold is 11.03 VMT/resident). The non-residential VMT was calculated at 21.53 VMT/service population for the subregional area with the Previously Proposed Project, which was slightly less than the "without project" VMT/service population of 21.56, resulting in a less than significant impact. The Draft EIR also evaluated the potential VMT-related impacts of Alternative 2, and determined that Alternative 2 would have greater VMT impacts than the Previously Proposed Project due to a 13% increase in vehicle trips due to the change in uses, as well as a substantial reduction in the amount of internal trip capture, resulting in a significant and unavoidable VMT impact. A supplemental VMT analysis was completed for the Revised Project, which determined that the residential VMT would increase to 13.14 VMT/resident and the non-residential VMT would increase to 21.57 VMT/service population in the subregional area under the "with Revised Project" scenario. Both residential and non-residential VMT levels exceed the City's applicable significance thresholds. However, the Revised Project's VMT impacts are the 25 same as under Alternative 2 in the Draft EIR, and do not constitute a new or substantially more severe effect than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR. Project Design Features: Project VMT is reduced by the following project design features/attributes, which are enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement and/or Specific Plan, and are anticipated to collectively reduce project home-based VMT by approximately 6%. The placement of 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 recreational land uses, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her recreational and retail needs. The Revised Project includes improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity, and encourage the use of alternative transportation. Recognized 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 provides 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 Revised Project minimizes barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. The Revised Project includes sidewalk connections, particularly to / from the retail areas resulting in interaction with residential uses on-site. Together, the Revised Project's implementation of these project design features provide a reduction in home-based VMT of 3% under CAPCOA guidance (see CEQA Compliance Memo, Appendix C, at pp. 5-6). Findings: Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the significant effects of the Revised Project related to VMT and consistency with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, implementation of the PDFs as described above and 26 recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval, will reduce VMT to the maximum extent feasible. The City of La Quinta further finds that despite implementation of all mitigation and PDF's identified in the Final EIR, VMT and consistency with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3 will remain a significant effect of the Revised Project, and specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or other alternatives, if any, identified in the Final EIR. In fact, the EIR did not identify any mitigation measures or project alternatives that would further reduce the Revised Project's unavoidable VMT impacts except the no project/no development alternative and the Previously Proposed Project, which are both inconsistent with the City's General Plan and deemed unacceptable by the City Council, as explained in more detail in Section VI below. Furthermore, the City finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Revised Project, including but not limited to generating transient occupancy and sales tax revenues to enhance the City's economic base and ensure its long-term financial stability, outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as more fully described in Section VII below, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. These findings are further explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. Facts in Support of Findings: The Urban Crossroads VMT Evaluation calculated project VMT using the most current version of the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM). Adjustments in socioeconomic data (SED) (i.e., employment) were made to a separate Traffic Analysis Zone JAZ) within the RIVTAM model to reflect the project's proposed population and employment uses, consistent with industry standards. For the Previously Proposed Project, the project was anticipated to generate approximately 1,698 project residents and 19,773 Home -Based VMT for baseline (2020) conditions. This results in approximately 11.64 home-based VMT/Capita for the 2020 Baseline with project conditions (Draft EIR, Table 4.13-31). In addition, the cumulative (2040) project scenario results in approximately 12.14 VMT/Service Population. Because the Previously Proposed Project exceeds the City's VMT/Capita threshold of 11.03 (based on the City's standard requiring a 15% reduction below its Citywide VMT/capita of 12.98), impacts would be considered potentially significant. However, the Previously Proposed Project incorporates design features and attributes 27 promoting trip reduction which would reduce residential VMT from 11.64 VMT/resident to 10.94 VMT/resident, including the placement of different land use types near one another as well as elements of the project that enhance walkability and connectivity between the mix of use types such as sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings and the presence of street trees (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.13-54 - 4.13-55). Implementation of the Previously Proposed Project design features would reduce potential impacts to below the City's established threshold for a significant VMT impact, and therefore, the residential portion of the Previously Proposed Project would have a less than significant VMT impact. For the Previously Proposed Project, the Development Agreement and/or conditions of approval would ensure that the project design features identified in the Draft EIR are enforceable by the City. The VMT analysis methodology for retail uses (including hotels) focuses on the net increase in the total existing VMT for the region. The Previously Proposed Project would have consisted of approximately 674 employees. Travel activity associated with total link -level VMT was extracted from the "without project" and "with non-residential project" RIVTAM model run for 2012 and 2040 conditions, then interpolated for baseline (2020) conditions. This methodology is referred to as "boundary method," and evaluates hotel occupants, Wave Basin visitors and retail patrons (see Draft EIR, 4.13-55 - 4.13-56). Using the boundary method, the Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) area VMT with project employment is compared to without project conditions to determine whether there is a significant impact. The CVAG subregion VMT/SP without project is estimated at 21.56, whereas with the Previously Proposed Project employment, the CVAG subregion VMT is estimated at 21.53 (Draft EIR, Table 4.13-33). Therefore, the project's effect on VMT (for non- residential uses) is not significant because it results in a cumulative link -level boundary decrease under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition (see pages 4.13-55 and 4.13-56 of the Draft EIR). Please also see Final EIR Responses 83-k and Appendix L.3, which the City Council hereby incorporates into its findings, analysis and conclusions. Urban Crossroads completed a supplemental VMT analysis for the Revised Project using these same methodologies and found that the Revised Project would have a slightly increased residential VMT of 13.14 and a slightly increased "with project" areawide VMT/service population of 21.57 (see CEQA Compliance Memo at pp. 49-51 and 55-57, and Appendix Q. Even with implementation of the CAPCOA recommended project design features to reduce VMT, both the residential and non-residential VMT calculations exceed the City's applicable thresholds of significance, and thus are a significant and unavoidable effect of the Revised Project. However, because these VMT increases are the same as would occur under Alternative 2 analyzed in the NM Draft EIR, and because the increases as compared to the Previously Proposed Project are incremental and not considered substantial (less than 15%), the Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe VMT- related effects than previously analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR. III. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that, for each of the following significant effects identified in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects on the environment, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels. The significant effects and mitigation measures are stated fully in the Final EIR and each of the mitigation measures have been imposed on the Project and are enforceable pursuant to the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions. These findings are explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. AESTHETICS Impact a Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway Corridor. There are no State or locally designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project. However, the City General Plan identifies views of the Santa Rosa Mountains from certain arterial roadways as 'Image Corridors," which include the segment of Madison Street that lies east of the project site, as well as Avenue 58 and Avenue 60. In addition, a partially collapsed adobe house located near the center of the project area, along with concrete pads and footings associated with the residential and agricultural buildings of the ranch on the project site, may be the remains of structures dating from the 1920s or before. The site may also include the original trash pits or privies which, if located, could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. Per the findings of the Cultural Report, the site meets the definition of a historical resource and impacts to it would be significant. Mitigation Measures: 29 To mitigate potential impacts concerning impacts to scenic resources, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: AES -1 The perimeter walls around the low density residential planning areas shall be setback from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way by a minimum average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC), which shall be confirmed through the City's review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape plans to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. AES -2 All residential structures shall be setback by a minimum of 75 feet from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. CUL -1: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to preserve the information on the adobe building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project's Homeowners Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre -1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun -colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, 30 porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al. 1998:54). Finding: Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the potentially significant effect on scenic resources described above, and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, and the City Council further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures AES -1, AES - 2, and CUL -1, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: As stated above, there are no State or locally designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the Revised Project (Draft EIR at p. 4.1-45). The City General Plan identifies views of the Santa Rosa Mountains from certain arterial roadways as "Image Corridors," which include the segment of Madison Street that lies east of the project site, as well as Avenue 58 and Avenue 60. The Specific Plan includes a 22 -foot maximum height on residential structures within a 150 -foot setback distance from these perimeter roadways in compliance with LQMC § 9.50.020. In addition, mitigation measures AES -1 and AES -2 identified above will be implemented and will further reduce potential impacts to these Image Corridors, which avoid any significant effects on the City's Image Corridors (Draft EIR at p. 4.1-45). While the project site contains partially collapsed remains of an adobe structure that qualifies as a significant historic resource, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 will assure that this significant historic resource is protected, and as a result, there will be no impact relating to damage of a historic scenic resource (Draft EIR at p. 4.1-46 and Appendix E). In addition, due to the vandalized and deteriorated condition of the structure, and the fact that it is not readily visible to drivers and pedestrians on the perimeter roadways, this structure is 31 not considered a significant scenic resource, even though it has historical significance. Based on the foregoing, with the implementation of mitigation measure CUL -1, the Project will not have a significant effect on scenic resources within a state scenic highway corridor. Moreover, the impacts of the Revised Project are the same as would occur if the site was developed with the Previously Proposed Project or Alternative 2 (existing entitlements). AIR QUALITY Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Localized air quality impacts were evaluated at sensitive receptor land uses nearest the project site. Due to the phased nature of the project development, future phases have the potential to generate construction impacts to the residents of previous phases of development. Phase 2 building construction activities will impact on-site sensitive receptors in Phase 1. Similarly, Phase 3 building construction activities will impact on-site sensitive receptors in Phases 1and 2. Construction Emissions: The Draft EIR concluded that for the Previously Proposed Project, without mitigation, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions for NOX, CO or PM2.5, but would exceed PM10 emissions by 0.28 pounds per day during Phase 1 of construction. Phase 2 and Phase 3 construction would involve relatively smaller disturbance areas not resulting in exceedances for this criteria pollutant. The PM10 exceedance during Phase 1 represents a potentially significant impact that requires mitigation. To evaluate the potential impacts of Phase 2 and Phase 3 grading on on-site sensitive receptors, such as Phase 1 and Phase 2 dwelling units that become occupied, the mitigated emissions from those construction activities were compared against the lowest localized emission thresholds for the closest distance interval available in the SCAQMD Look -Up Tables for the Coachella Valley. The applicable construction -source mitigation measures are Mitigation Measure AQ -1 aimed at preventing paving activity from overlapping with architectural coating activities and Mitigation Measure AQ -2 aimed at ensuring that equipment greater than 150 horsepower complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards and to ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The Draft EIR concluded that the construction emissions for Alternative 2 would be similar to the Previously Proposed Project, and significant without 32 mitigation, because the same area would be disturbed and the entire site would be developed. The Revised Project would have the same impact because it develops the same project site with the same mix of uses as Alternative 2. Operational Emissions: The Previously Proposed Project was proposed to consist of a wave pool, a 150 -key hotel, 104 attached resort residential DUs, associated resort commercial development, 496 detached DUs, and 60,000 sf of retail. According to SCAQMD's LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The Previously Proposed Project did not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, it would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The same is true for both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential project specific and cumulative air quality impacts relating to exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: AQ -1: During Phase 1 of construction, the paving installation activity shall not overlap with the architectural coating (building painting) activity. That prohibition shall be included on all building plans. AQ -2: For equipment greater than 150 horsepower (> 150 HP), the Construction Contractor shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The following standard regulatory requirements and best available control measures shall appear on all project grading plans, construction specifications and bid documents, and the City shall ensure that such language is incorporated prior to issuance of any development permits: 33 BACM AQ -1: The contractor shall adhere to applicable measures contained in Table 1 of Rule 403 including, but not limited to: • All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are limited to 15 miles per hour or less. Finding• Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the significant air quality effects related to exposure to substantial concentrations of pollutants described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures AQ -1 and AQ -2 and BACM AQ -1, as described and recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: As described above, without mitigation, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions for NOX, CO or PM2.5, but would exceed PM10 emissions day during Phase 1 of construction. As shown in Table 4.2-12 and discussed on pages 4.2-36 - 4.2-40 of the Draft EIR, the PM10 emissions during Phase 1 of construction of the Previously Proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD localized threshold at the nearest off-site sensitive receptor location, identified as R7 (the nearest exiting residence located north of Avenue 60, approximately 37 feet from the project 34 boundary, as shown in Exhibit 4.2-1). However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -2, all criteria pollutant emissions, including PM10, will be below SCAQMD's localized significance threshold (see Table 4.2-13). Phase 2 and Phase 3 construction would involve relatively smaller disturbance areas not resulting in exceedances for any criteria pollutant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2 (Draft EIR, at p. 4.2-40 and Table 4.2- 14). Accordingly, the Draft EIR concluded that the Previously Proposed Project would not cause any significant effects, including adverse health effects, as a result of construction related air emissions with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2. Please also see Final EIR, Response to Comment 42-f, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. The Draft EIR further concluded that construction impacts from Alternative 2 would be similar to those analyzed under the Previously Proposed Project because the same project area would be disturbed, and the entire site would be developed. The Revised Project would develop the same project site with the same mix of uses as Alternative 2 and would have the same construction - related emissions impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2, impacts would be less than significant. As described above and analyzed in further detail in the Draft EIR at p. 4.2- 40, the Previously Proposed Project does not include stationary emissions sources (e.g., factories) or uses that require lengthy idling of vehicles (e.g., transfer stations or warehouses), and therefore, the project will not cause long-term operational emissions that could exceed SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds or cause any significant health or other impacts on sensitive receptors in the area. The same is true for both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. The City Council also considered the supplemental letters from Mitchell Tsai, dated April 12, 2022, and SWAPE, dated April 6, 2022, and finds that those letters fail to provide evidence of any new or substantially more severe effects than previously disclosed and analyzed in the EIR. The City Council specifically rejects the assertion in those letters that the air quality analysis in the EIR understates operational emissions, and the City Council bases this conclusion on the supplemental expert letter from Haseeb Qureshi at Urban Crossroads, dated May 25, 2022, which confirms that the operational emissions were calculated properly. Based on Mr. Qureshi's expert letter, which is hereby incorporated into these findings, the City Council also rejects the assertion that a separate health risk assessment for diesel particulate matter is required or appropriate for the project because the project will not generate sufficient diesel particulate matter to cause any potential adverse effects. The City Council further finds that the Air Quality analysis properly disclosed and analyzed the potential health risks associated with the project's construction 35 and operational toxic air contaminant emissions, based on the expert evidence and explanation in Mr. Qureshi's supplemental letter. While the above -referenced comments and responses were made with respect to the Previously Proposed Project, nothing contained therein provides any substantial evidence that the Revised Project will have any new or substantially more severe effects than disclosed and analyzed in the Draft EIR. As shown in the supplemental Air Quality analysis conducted by Urban Crossroads and discussed in the CEQA Compliance Memo, the Revised Project will have the same Air Quality emissions as Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR and will have similar Air Quality impacts to those generated by the Previously Proposed Project (see CEQA Compliance Memo, at pp. 12-16 and Appendix A). BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Candidate, sensitive or special status species and Riparian habitat. The proposed project site will result in potentially significant impacts related to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species and sensitive natural communities. These species are identified on pages 4.3-11 - 4.3-15 of the Draft EIR, and include the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (PBS), a federally endangered species and State endangered and California Fully Protected species, the Burrowing owl, and numerous species of bats. In addition, the project site has the vegetation to potentially support nesting birds which are protected by California Fish and Game Code and by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which are addressed in the "movement of wildlife" section below. As the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Previously Proposed Project are all located on exactly the same project site, all three scenarios have the same potential impacts and the analysis in the Draft EIR apply to all three. Mitigation Measures: To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species, the following mitigation measure are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: BIO -1: Burrowing owl surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist, approved by the City prior to any site disturbance activities. A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site 36 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. 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. If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures, consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP. BIO -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 all construction activities within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. 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. BIO -8: Existing native vegetation, particularly palo verde trees, will be retained where feasible. Landscaping shall include native desert species. 37 BIO -9: Onsite lakes will be designed and constructed by industry professionals and will incorporate proper aeration, circulation and filtration to maintain a balanced lake ecosystem. Lakes will be stocked with beneficial fish and plant species. Limited chemical applications will be utilized as necessary. Ongoing maintenance will ensure that onsite lakes function properly to control any invasive species or other nuisance conditions. BIO -10: An education program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the commercial, open space, and low-density community through the use of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what threats this species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these threats. This includes information that explains: (1) why restrictions on toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged. Finding• Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects on candidate, sensitive, or special status species described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures BIO -1 and BIO -7 through BIO -10, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Burrowing Owls: Mitigation measure BIO -1 conforms to the protocols and requirements of the CVMSHCP and will ensure that construction activities will not impact any burrowing owls or active nests. Although CDFW requested revisions to mitigation measure BIO -1 in its letter dated August 13, 2021 (Comment letter 13), these revisions exceed what is required under the CVMSHCP and the City finds that these further revisions are not required to fully mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owls. Also see Comment No. 13- o and the response thereto in the Final EIR, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep: PBS in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountain ranges is a covered species under the 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 CVMSHCP. The project site itself does not contain suitable PBS habitat and is located approximately 0.62 acres to the east of the Conservation area (see ELMT Biological Assessment, Appendix D.5 of the Final EIR). Coral Mountain provides limited foraging habitat and limited escape cover for PBS, and the project has the potential to act as an attractant for food and water sources. The intervening area between Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains consisting of both hilly and flat terrain owned by the Bureau of Land Management, which provides some escape cover, but exposes PBS venturing out of the Santa Rosas to predation by coyotes and other large predators. The Coral Mountain project site is not within or adjacent to the boundaries of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area but is subject to the CVMSHCP Conservation Measures. It is recognized that habitat modification from development can attract PBS and create threats to PBS 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. In addition, Coral Mountain and the adjacent BLM open space were identified as "essential habitat" in the USFW 2000 PBS Recovery Plan. Accordingly, to avoid any significant impacts to PBS and its essential habitat the project will comply with the Adjacency Guidelines in the CVMSHCP relating to PBS because the sheep are known to travel outside the designated Conservation Area for sources of forage and water. The project as proposed is consistent with these guidelines which address toxic and other hazardous plants, drainage, exposure to toxic chemicals and byproducts, lighting, noise, grading near conservation areas because the Specific Plan includes a Conceptual PBS Barrier Plan that defines a fencing plan for the project site. The barrier/fence along the western edge of the site would eliminate these potential threats to PBS from site development (See ELMT memo and Exhibit 2, at Final EIR Appendix D.5). A barrier/fence would prevent PBS from exiting Coral Mountain onto the site, where there is no escape cover and where they 39 would be vulnerable to predation and exposure to toxic plants, herbicides and insecticides. PBS would 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. Also see Final EIR, pp. 2-11 - 2-16. The fence/wall design will be approved by the City of La Quinta in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). It will draw from the prototypical fencing types described in the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) "PBS Barrier Project" and will be consistent with the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. In addition, and consistent with the CVMSHCP adjacency guidelines, the Specific Plan plant palette has been modified to include approved specimens listed as "Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping" and will avoid specimens listed as "Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants" on lands adjoining the sheep barrier. 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. Finally, mitigation measure BIO -8 has been added to retain native vegetation where feasible. At the request of CDFW, two mitigation measures have been added to further minimize any potential to attract PBS to the project site or to impact PBS. Mitigation measure BIO -9 requires that all water features be designed and maintained to eliminate the potential for arboviral disease vectors (BIO -9). In addition, mitigation measure BIO -10 requires implementation of an educational program about PBS and its habitat that includes the preparation of informational materials for distribution to homeowners and hotel guests on the local environmental setting, including proper interactions with PBS. In addition, the project developer will collaborate with the Desert Recreation District (DRD) regarding the planned public trail connection through the property. The DRD 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. Please also see Response 13-m in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR, at pp. 2-86 - 2-88. Finally, to ensure that the project will avoid any significant construction or operational noise impacts on PBS and other wildlife using Coral Mountain, Mitigation Measure BIO -7 requires noise monitoring for all construction activities within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. 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. Also see Response 13-q at p. 2-93 of the Final EIR. M Based on these project features, and the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -7, BIO -8, BIO -9 and BIO -10, the project will be consistent with the CVMSHCP and will not result in significant direct or indirect impacts to PBS or involve the development of suitable habitat that could create an attractive nuisance for PBS. Movement of wildlife. There is no evidence of migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites on the project site or adjacent properties. Since the project property does not lie within a CVMSHCP-designated wildlife corridor and the project site is adjacent to development, the proposed project is not anticipated to have significant impacts related to habitat fragmentation and regional wildlife movement. However, the project site has the vegetation to potentially support nesting birds which are protected by California Fish and Game Code and by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. MBTA makes it unlawful to "take" any migratory bird including their nests, eggs, or products. Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, and many others. Burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon, black -tailed gnatcatcher, and Le Conte's thrasher could occur on the site, and are covered by the MBTA. Therefore, potential impacts on nesting birds are considered a significant adverse effect, and mitigation is required to reduce the impact to nesting birds to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts to the movement of wildlife, including migratory birds and bats, the following mitigation measure are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: 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 41 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 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 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: To avoid 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 (i.e., dark sky compliant lighting) installed to ensure that there is no light trespass on to Coral Mountain and surrounding open space. BIO -5: A qualified bat biologist shall confirm the absence of roosting bats prior to any restoration work or other disturbance of the adobe site. 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 42 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. 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 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 all construction activities using heavy equipment within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. If noise levels exceed 75 dBA, construction or operational changes or other modifications shall be made, as directed by the project biologist to reduce the noise levels at Coral Mountain to below 75 dBA. Finding• Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects on the movement of wildlife, including migratory birds and bats, described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project 43 which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures BIO -1 and BIO -7 through BIO -10, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: To ensure compliance with the California Fish & Game Code and the MBTA, mitigation measure BIO -6 requires completion of pre -construction nesting surveys by a qualified biologist prior to any ground -disturbing activities during the nesting season, and requires biological monitoring to continue as needed. No construction will occur within a 300 -foot buffer of any nests (500 feet for raptors). Implementation of mitigation measure BIO -6 will avoid any take of nesting birds. Also see Comment 13-p and Response 13-p on pp. 2-91 and 2-92 of the Final EIR. Bats: To avoid impacts to all potential bat species which may occur on the site, additional maternity -season surveys were performed in June 2021 to maximize the probability of detection of maternity roosts for all bat species (implementing proposed mitigation measure BIO -2.) The results of the maternity season surveys determined that large numbers of bats consistent with the presence of maternity roosting were observed emerging from the crevices and small caves along the rock outcrops in a portion of Coral Mountain (see Updated Focused Bat Surveys report, Appendix D.3 to the Final EIR, at p. 9). Although no construction will occur at these rock outcrops, roosting bats in this area could be adversely affected by increases in artificial lighting and noise. To reduce potential impacts to roosting bats to less than significant levels, mitigation measures BIO -3, BIO -4, and BIO -5 require all tree removals to comply with CDFW protocols, prohibit artificial lighting on any portion of Coral Mountain, and an additional roosting bat survey by a qualified biologist prior to any restoration work or other disturbance of the adobe site. In addition, to ensure that the project will avoid any significant construction or operational noise impacts on bats, Mitigation Measure BIO -7 requires noise monitoring for all construction activities within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. 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. Also see Response 13-q at p. 2-93 of the Final EIR. Also see Responses 13-r at pp. 2-94 - 2-95 of the Final EIR. WE Consistency with local policies or applicable habitat conservation Ip an. The project lies within the boundary of the CVMSHCP which outlines policies for conservation habitats and natural communities and is implemented for this property by the City of La Quinta. As the site lies outside the plan's designated conservation areas, the CVMSHCP does not establish any policies applicable to the removal of the species of trees and other habitat on the project site, except that the project will be required to pay the CVMSHCP mitigation fee to mitigate the loss of habitat for covered species in the Coachella Valley. However, compliance with the CVMSHCP also requires compliance with the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines specified in Section 4.5 of the plan and, to the extent applicable, the specific conservation measures identified for the covered species. Failure to comply with such guidelines is considered a potentially significant impact. There are no other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans currently in place, other than the CVMSHCP, that are applicable to the proposed project. The project's consistency with the CVMSHCP is fully addressed under the discussion of protected and special status species above, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. With payment of the required CVMSHCP fee and implementation of the required sheep barrier and mitigation measures BIO -7 through BIO -10, the project is fully consistent with the CVMSHCP, including all applicable species conservation measures and adjacency guidelines. 45 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts to Historical Resources. Implementation of the proposed project will result in potentially significant impacts to historical resources, including California Historical Resources Inventory Site 33-038838, which is the remains of a partially collapsed adobe house and other features of the former Coral Reef Ranch located on the project site. Historical research suggests that the adobe house was likely constructed in the 1920s or 1930s, and may be one of the earliest settlements and agricultural enterprises to be established in the present day boundary of the City. Although the adobe building has been badly damaged and vandalized, further damage to this known historic resource from project construction would be considered a significant impact. As the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Previously Proposed Project are all located on exactly the same project site, all three scenarios have the same potential impacts and the analysis in the Draft EIR apply to all three. Mitigation Measures: To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts to historic resources, the following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: CUL -1: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to preserve the information on the adobe building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project's Homeowners Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre -1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun -colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al. 1998:54). Finding Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the significant effects on historic resources described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measure CUL -1, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: While implementation of the Revised Project has the potential to impact the identified historical resources described above and in the Draft EIR (see pp. 4.4-12 - 4.4-15), these potentially significant impacts to historical resources will be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1, which requires a comprehensive recordation program for the remains of the adobe structure (Site 33-008388) to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. To avoid impacts to this site, no earth moving activities shall occur until the site is fenced and flagged; a comprehensive recordation project of the site has been completed; and preservation and stabilization of the remains in place as a community feature with an informational plaque has been completed, as described in mitigation measure CUL -1. The measure also requires the preservation of the site in 47 perpetuity by the Homeowners' Association for the project. The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant levels (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.4-12 - 4.4-13). Impacts to Archaeological Resources. Implementation of the proposed project will result in potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources, including Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, termed the "Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex." Construction of the project will involve ground -disturbing activities with the potential to unearth unknown buried resources or adversely impact these known resources as well as previously unidentified archaeological historical resources. As the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Previously Proposed Project are all located on exactly the same project site, all three scenarios have the same potential impacts and the analysis in the Draft EIR apply to all three. Mitigation Measures: To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: CUL -2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and activities. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. CUL -3: An approved Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Native American Cultural Resource Monitor shall be present during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys) for the project. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the Tribal monitor can assess the significance of the find. CUL -4: Prior to ground disturbance during any phase of the project, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all workers, En conducted by the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). CUL -5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contains the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project construction through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Deed restrictions shall be recorded for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas and provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance of any portion of Planning Area III. For the balance of Site 33-001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to ground disturbance to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI and their approval provided to the City in writing prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site. Finding Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects on archaeological resources described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures CUL -2 through CUL -5, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: A total of eight sites and seven isolates are known to be present within or partially within the project boundary today. Only three sites constitute an archaeological and historical resource, which contain panels of rock art as well as milling features and ceramics contributory to the rock art panel areas (33- 001931 33-001715, and 33-009545). These sites are situated in proximity to one another along the eastern base of Coral Mountain and have been termed the "Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex". The Final EIR technical analysis determined that the sites are eligible for listing in the California Register. As a result, impacts to these sites resulting from development of the project would be considered significant and must be mitigated. To that end, mitigation measure CUL -5 assures fencing and delineation of the area prior to any development activity; the long-term protection of these sites, through prohibition of development, and the recordation of protective easements, as well as a program of research and documentation of the sites. For the balance of Site 33-001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation is required in mitigation measure CUL -5 to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project. In addition, mitigation measures CUL -2 and CUL -3 require monitoring on the site for all earth moving activities (including vegetation removal, grubbing, grading and excavation) by both an archaeological and Tribal monitor. These monitoring activities will provide further protection of these resources and ensure that any previously undiscovered human remains or other historical or archaeological resources will be properly handled to avoid any significant effects. In addition, during Tribal consultation, the ACBCI requested further mitigation, which is provided in Section 4.13, Tribal Cultural Resources. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to significant cultural resources, including sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, will be reduced to less than significant levels (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.4-14 - 4.4-15). Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures CUL -1, CUL -2, CUL -3, CUL -4, and CUL -5, and the Mitigation Measures listed in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, project -specific and cumulative effects on cultural resources will be less than significant (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.4-16 - 4.4-18). Impacts to human remains. The project occurs in a highly sensitive area, and ground disturbing activities could result in the identification of additional resources, including previously unidentified cremations and human remains, and this is considered a potentially significant adverse effect. Mitigation Measures: 50 To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts concerning the discovery of human remains, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: CUL -2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and activities. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. CUL -3: An approved Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Native American Cultural Resource Monitor shall be present during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys) for the project. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the Tribal monitor can assess the significance of the find. Finding: Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects concerning human remains described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures CUL -2 and CUL -5, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines 15064.5, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no 51 further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains. Compliance with these legal requirements, along with implementation of mitigation measures CUL -2 and CUL -3, which require the presence of a qualified archaeologist and Native American resource monitors during all ground disturbing activities, will ensure that potential impacts relating to human remains will be less than significant. 52 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Expose People or Structures to Effects Involving: Seismic -Related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction: Implementation of the Revised Project has the potential for significant adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking and seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, due to the active faults in the project vicinity and the fact that the southeastern portions of the City of La Quinta are considered highly and moderately susceptible to liquefaction. As the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Previously Proposed Project are all located on exactly the same project site, all three scenarios are subject to the same potential impacts from seismic -related ground shaking and the analysis in the Draft EIR apply to all three. Mitigation Measures: To avoid or substantially reduce potential adverse effects associated with seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: GEO-1 All designs for any water body on the site shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and comply with all seismic codes in effect at the time they are constructed. All designs shall be based on and incorporate the recommendation of a qualified soils engineer in a site and water body specific report attached to the plans submitted to the City. GEO-2 All earthwork including excavation, backfill and preparation of the subgrade soil, shall be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations, presented below, and portions of the local regulatory requirements, as applicable. All earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing of a qualified soil engineer. The following geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed project are based on observations from the field investigation program, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analyses. • Stripping: areas to be graded shall be cleared of the vegetation, associated root systems and debris. All areas scheduled to receive fill should be cleared of old fills and any irreducible matter. The stripping shall be removed 53 off -sit or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas. Undocumented fill soil or loose soil shall be removed in its entirety and replaced as engineered fill. Voids left by obstruction shall be properly backfilled in accordance with the compaction recommendations of this report. • Preparation of the Residential Building Areas: in order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, the primary foundation bearing soil shall be over - excavated and recompacted. Over -excavation shall extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet blow the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. Once adequate removals have been verified, the exposed native soil shall be scarified, the moisture - conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. • Compaction: Soil to be used as engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris and other deleterious substances, and shall not contain irreducible matter greater than six (6) inches in maximum dimension. All fill materials shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding six inches in a loose condition. If import fill is required, the material shall be of a non -expansive nature and shall meet the following criteria: Plastic Index Less than 12 Liquid Limit Less than 35 Percent Soil Passing #200 Sieve Between 15% and 35% Maximum Aggregate Size 3 Inches The subgrade and all fill material shall be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The bottom of the exposed subgrade shall be observed by a representative of Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials. • Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill shall be anticipated. It is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted shall be between 1 and 3 tenths of a foot. This 54 will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained. Finding: Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: The Revised Project will incorporate the necessary structural engineering design features to address the risk of seismic -related ground shaking. This is identified as Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Through this design, the potential for water intrusion generated by seismic events will be properly mitigated and contained to prevent seismic -related ground failure. Since the project site is potentially susceptible to liquefaction, the project site will be required to comply with the site preparation and foundation recommendations listed in the project -specific Geotechnical Investigation in order to ensure project safety as set forth in Mitigation Measure GEO-2. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, and State building standards, impacts of seismic related ground failure at the project will be reduced to less than significant. Please also see Responses 22-h, 42-g, 86-a, and 86-b, which are hereby incorporated into the City Council's findings, analysis and conclusions. Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit or Expansive Soil The native materials on the project site consist primarily of silty sand and sandy silt, with minor portions of clay. While the project geotechnical evaluation determined that the project soils have a very -low to medium potential for expansion, development of homes and other project components on the project site could potentially expose persons and property to substantial damage and harm, which is considered a potentially significant adverse effect. 55 Mitigation Measures: To avoid or substantially reduce potential adverse effects associated with development on an unstable geologic unit or expansive soil, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: GEO-1 All designs for any water body on the site shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and comply with all seismic codes in effect at the time they are constructed. All designs shall be based on and incorporate the recommendation of a qualified soils engineer in a site and water body specific report attached to the plans submitted to the City. GEO-2 All earthwork including excavation, backfill and preparation of the subgrade soil, shall be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations, presented below, and portions of the local regulatory requirements, as applicable. All earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing of a qualified soil engineer. The following geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed project are based on observations from the field investigation program, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analyses. • Stripping: areas to be graded shall be cleared of the vegetation, associated root systems and debris. All areas scheduled to receive fill should be cleared of old fills and any irreducible matter. The stripping shall be removed off -sit or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas. Undocumented fill soil or loose soil shall be removed in its entirety and replaced as engineered fill. Voids left by obstruction shall be properly backfilled in accordance with the compaction recommendations of this report. • Preparation of the Residential Building Areas: in order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, the primary foundation bearing soil shall be over - excavated and recompacted. Over -excavation shall extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet blow the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. Once adequate removals have been verified, the exposed native soil shall be scarified, the moisture - 56 conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. • Compaction: Soil to be used as engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris and other deleterious substances, and shall not contain irreducible matter greater than six (6) inches in maximum dimension. All fill materials shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding six inches in a loose condition. If import fill is required, the material shall be of a non -expansive nature and shall meet the following criteria: Plastic Index Less than 12 Liquid Limit Less than 35 Percent Soil Passing #200 Sieve Between 15% and 35% Maximum Aggregate Size 3 Inches The subgrade and all fill material shall be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The bottom of the exposed subgrade shall be observed by a representative of Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials. • Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill shall be anticipated. It is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted shall be between 1 and 3 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained. Finding: Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to development on an unstable geologic unit or expansive soil described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will 57 be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Since the project site is being developed on a site with potentially unstable or expansive soils. The project site will be required to comply with the current California Building Code (CBC) standards, City requirements, and the site preparation and foundation recommendations listed in the project -specific Geotechnical Investigation in order to ensure the proper removal and recompaction of undocumented fill and unstable or expansive soils, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-2. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, and compliance with State building standards, impacts from potentially unstable or expansive soils at the project will be reduced to less than significant. Please also see Responses 22-h, 42-g, 86-a, and 86-b, which are hereby incorporated into the City Council's findings, analysis and conclusions. Impacts to a Unique Paleontological Resource, Site or Unique Geologic Feature The project specific paleontological report included both a records search and field surveys, and while no significant resources were found, the report concluded that significant fossil vertebrate remains could be encountered during deeper excavations into subsurface lakebed sediments from Holocene Lake Cahuilla, which are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity. This is considered a potentially significant adverse effect. As the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Previously Proposed Project are all located on exactly the same project site, all three scenarios have the same potential impacts and the analysis in the Draft EIR apply to all three. Mitigation Measures: To avoid or substantially reduce potential adverse effects on a unique paleontological resource, site or geologic feature, the following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: GEO-3 All earth -moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor and continuous monitoring will become necessary if undisturbed, potentially fossiliferous lakebed sediments are encountered. The monitor shall be empowered to stop earth moving activities if fossils are identified. The monitor shall be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. A monitoring plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any earth moving permit, or the disturbance of any soils on the site, which will include: • Samples of sediments shall be collected and processed to recover small fossil remains. • Recovered specimens shall be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future. • A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance when appropriate, shall be prepared upon completion of the research procedures outlined above. The report shall be provided to the City within 30 days of the conclusion of monitoring activities. Finding: Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the significant effects relating to paleontological resources described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measure GEO-3, as recommended in the Final EIR, which has been adopted by the City and is enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: In order to reduce impacts to paleontological resources encountered at depth on the project site, Mitigation Measure GEO-3 requires all earthmoving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet to be monitored by a 59 qualified paleontological monitor and continuous monitoring will become necessary if undisturbed, potentially fossiliferous lakebed sediments are encountered. With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts associated with fossils on the project site will be less than significant. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that all potentially significant project -specific and cumulative impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3. NOISE Consistency with Established Noise Standards/Increases in Ambient Noise Levels. As analyzed in the Final EIR, the project will generate short-term construction noise and long-term increases in traffic noise and operational noise. These increases in noise would be considered a significant adverse effect if they exceed the City's established noise standards. The City's Municipal Code establishes a daytime exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL near sensitive receptors, including residential communities. The City also considers increases in existing ambient noise levels to be significant if they exceed 1.5 dBA where ambient noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, exceed 3 dBA where ambient noise levels are between 60 dBA and 65 dBA, or exceed 5 dBA where existing noise levels are less than 60 dBA. For construction noise, the City has established a significance threshold of 85 dBA, consistent with the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (See Draft EIR at pp. 4.11-18 - 4.11-21). Construction of the proposed project would generate short-term increases in noise, which would be considered a significant impact if these noise increases exceed the City's significance threshold. While the noise study determined that construction noise levels would not exceed the 85 dBA threshold at any nearby receptors, including future project residents (see Draft EIR Tables 4.11-15 and 4.11-16), it identifies Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-4 to reduce construction noise. The project will not generate operational noise levels that exceed the City's 65 dBA noise standard or have any significant impact on any sensitive receptors, including residents in the surrounding communities. In addition, operational noise levels will not cause any substantial increases in ambient noise levels in excess of the significance thresholds specified above. However, off-site traffic generates traffic noise on the project site that could expose future project residents to noise levels that exceed the City's noise standard of 65 dBA. Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential project specific and cumulative effects relating to noise, and to further minimize any noise increases for existing residents in the project vicinity, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: NOI-1 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that project construction activities shall comply with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code requirements. NOI-2 During all project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with property operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. NOI-3 The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receivers nearest the project site during all project construction (i.e., to the center). NOI-4 The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck -related noise. NOI-5 A six-foot perimeter wall will be developed along the northern and eastern property boundaries, adjacent to the proposed Low Density Residential Planning Area, in order to protect the proposed onsite residential uses from off-site traffic noise. The barriers shall provide a weight of at least four pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line -of -sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways. The barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. Finding: 61 Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to noise described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures NOI-1 through NOI-5, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Construction of the Revised Project would not result in significant impacts. While construction activities will create temporarily high noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the equipment, noise will not exceed the 85 dBA standard established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) identified by the City as the threshold of significance for noise impacts from construction activities. The highest construction noise levels at the nearby sensitive receptors (residences) are projected to range from 58 dBA to 76.5 dBA, which are well below the established threshold of significance (Draft EIR, Table 4.11-15). Additionally, the City of La Quinta established construction hours of operation to lessen the impacts of construction noise (see Draft EIR, Table 4.11-2). Although the Revised Project will not result in significant construction noise impacts, the project will be required to implement mitigation measures NOI-1 through NOI-4, to further reduce and minimize the generation of construction noise. Construction noise impacts from the Revised Project will be substantially the same as the construction noise from both the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2, because all three involve development of the same number of acres and the same project site, and in all cases, will be less than significant with mitigation measures NOI-1 through NOI-4. The Noise Study analyzed operational noise generated by the Previously Proposed Project, including off-site and on-site traffic noise generated by project -related increases in vehicular traffic, noise generated by the proposed special events, and noise generated by the Wave Basin. Measurements of existing noise levels at various locations were conducted in proximity to the project site. The ten locations where measurements were collected were chosen to represent noise sensitive areas, such as nearby residential properties. 62 Traffic Noise: The project will generate a noise level increase of less than 3.0 dBA CNEL in all study area roadway segments except for segment 27 (Avenue 60 west of Madison Street), which will experience and increase of up to 3.2 dBA CNEL (Draft EIR, Tables 4.11-17, 4.11-18, and 4.11-19). Based on the significance criteria, the project -related noise level increases are considered less than significant under existing, plus ambient growth, plus cumulative development in buildout year 2026 (EAC 2026) with project conditions at the land uses adjacent to roadways conveying project traffic, because all but one segment (Avenue 60, west of Madison St.) experience increases of less than 3.0 dBA CNEL. While the segment of Avenue 60 west of Madison Street would experience an increase in roadway noise of 3.2 dBA under existing plus ambient and cumulative conditions, this increase does not exceed the established threshold of significance of a 5 dBA or greater increase in areas with ambient noise levels below 60 dBA (Draft EIR, Table 4.11-8). Therefore, offsite traffic would result in less than significant levels. As compared to the Previously Proposed Project described above, the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would have similar, less than significant roadway noise impacts. While the Revised Project and Alternative 2 both have approximately 13% more vehicle trips than the Previously Proposed Project, this modest increase in trips would not cause a substantial increase in roadway noise nor create any significant operational noise impacts given the capacity of the roadway system and the dispersed nature of the trips. Off-site traffic also generates traffic noise on the project site; therefore, six- foot perimeter walls will be developed along the existing rights-of-way and adjacent to the proposed Low Density Residential Planning Area (Mitigation Measure NOI-5). While this is not considered a significant impact under CEQA under the California Supreme Court decision in California Building Industry Assn. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4t" 369, 392), implementation of mitigation measure NOI-5 and standard building construction and windows, will ensure that future project residents will not be exposed to interior or exterior noise levels that exceeds the City's established limits (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.11-42 - 4.11-43). Special Events: Noise generated by off-site traffic during special events from the Previously Proposed Project was also analyzed in the Noise Study (see Draft EIR Table 4.11-20). The Noise Study projects that off-site roadway noise levels during special event conditions would range from 60.5 to 73.9 dBA CNEL, and would result in a noise level increases of 1.5 dBA or less at all sensitive receptor locations (excluding segment 27 described above, which will experience an increase of 3.2 dBA). Based on the significance criteria, those roadway noise level increases are considered to be less than significant under the Previously Proposed Project with special events condition at the land uses adjacent to roadways conveying project traffic. As the Revised Project 63 and Alternative 2 both eliminate the wave basin and its associated special events, no such increased traffic noise levels would occur and impacts would be less than significant. Operational Noise: In addition to construction noise and off-site traffic noise, the Draft EIR (and the Noise Study and supplemental Noise Memo prepared by Urban Crossroads attached as Appendix K.1 and K.2 to the DEIR) analyzed operational noise impacts generated by the Previously Proposed Project. Operational activities analyzed included activities associated with use of the wave basin, outdoor pool/spa activities, outdoor activities, and activities at the neighborhood commercial center. The operational noise levels that would be experienced at the sensitive receptor locations range from 39.8 dBA to 52.2 dBA, and the increase in ambient noise levels range from 0.0 dBA to 0.9 dBA at all locations except location R8 (the closest adjacent residence), which will increase 4.9 dBA, from 43.8 dBA to 48.7 dBA, which is still substantially below the City's outdoor noise standard of 65 dBA (Draft EIR, Tables 4.11-25 and 4.11-26). The previously proposed wave basin would use similar technology and equipment as the existing facility in Lemoore, California and, for this reason, noise measurements were collected at the existing Wave Basin and used in the analysis of the noise levels that would be generated by the Wave Basin included in the project. The previously proposed wave basin included the following improvements that would have reduced overall noise levels: (1) the tower -mounted speakers in Lemoore were replaced by a set of smaller speakers located near the water surface level to reduce the announcement noise level, and (2) most of the winch cable system would have been submerged under water, which would have further reduced noise levels. See Exhibits L and M to the James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022. However, the noise study did not reduce projected noise levels based on these enhancements, and instead, considered the actual, louder noise readings taken in Lemoore. These measurements included ten wave events, measured at eight different locations, over a period of 53 minutes. The reference noise levels indicate that during peak wave events, the wave basin generates noise levels ranging from 62.6 dBA Leq at the end of the wave basin, 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 a distance of 12 feet was used in the analysis Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-45 - 4.11-46. The referenced noise level measurements included all sources of noise associated with the wave basin in Lemoore, including loudspeaker announcements, noise generated from the waves and associated machinery and use of jet skis in the basin (See Final EIR, Appendix K.3). These noise levels taken at the noise source were input into the noise modelling software used by Urban Crossroads, CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement), which is a three-dimensional noise model that analyzes multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels at the selected receptor locations (see Noise Study, pp. 73-74, at Draft EIR Appendix K.2). As shown on Table 4.11-26 in the Draft EIR, the operational noise levels at noise sensitive receptors ranged from 39.8 dBA to 52.2 dBA, and cause increases in ambient noise levels of less than 1.0 dBA at all but one location. In location R8, approximately 38 feet from the project site and south of Avenue 60, the ambient noise level would increase from 43.8 dBA to 48.7 dBA, which remains substantially below the City's established standard of 65. dBA (and the increase is below the applicable standard of 5.0 dBA) (see Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-47 - 4.11-49. On the specific issue of whether significant noise levels will be amplified by bouncing off Coral Mountain, the FEIR notes that based on Federal Highway Administration studies and guidance, if all noise striking a hard surface were reflected back to a given receiving point, the maximum increase in noise would be limited to 3dBA. However, not all acoustical energy is reflected back to the same point, and accordingly, FHWA measurements show that reflective noise increases do not exceed 1-2 dBA, which is not perceptible to the human ear (see Final EIR, at pp. 2-31 - 2-32, and Appendix K.2 to the Draft EIR). The City Council accepts and agrees with this expert analysis of potential noise impacts, and also adopts and incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions set forth in Responses 52-h, 59-e, and 62-f in the Final EIR. The City Council also accepts and agrees with the supplemental noise memoranda submitted by Meridian Consultants (April 25, 2022) and Urban Crossroads (April 26, 2022 and August 16, 2022), addressing noise -related comments made during the public hearings, and find that these memoranda further confirm that the Previously Proposed Project would not have any significant noise impacts on the surrounding communities. Finally, on the specific issue of potential noise impacts from the speaker system used at the wave basin to make safety announcements, the City Council accepts and relies upon the evidence supplied by Kelly Slater Wave Co., dated August 8, 2022, and from Urban Crossroads, dated August 16, 2022, describing the details of the speaker system, which will not exceed City of La Quinta noise standards in any location. See Exhibits L, K, and M to James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022. Both the Revised Project and Alternative B would have reduced operational noise impacts than analyzed in the Final EIR and described above for the Previously Proposed Project because the wave basin, resort uses, and associated special events have been eliminated. The Revised Project will have low-density residential, golf course and neighborhood commercial uses that 65 are consistent with the existing Zoning and General Plan, as well as the surrounding communities. Overall, the Revised Project would have the same construction and operational noise impacts as Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIR and would have reduced noise impacts as compared with the Previously Proposed Project due to the elimination of the wave basin and resort uses. Accordingly, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe noise effects than analyzed in the Draft EIR, TRANSPORTATION Consistency with an Applicable Plan or Policy Addressing the Circulation System. The proposed project would add traffic to area roadways that could result in significant changes in the level of service at area intersections and thus potentially conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, which is considered a potentially significant adverse effect. Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential project specific and cumulative effects relating to traffic and transportation, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: TRA -1 The project proponent shall contribute DIF as required by the City of La Quinta. TRA -2 The project proponent shall contribute TUMF traffic impact mitigation fees prior to the issuance of Building Permits. TRA -15 The project proponent shall ensure that the proposed Coral Mountain Interpretive Center trail designated by the Desert Recreation District Master Plan and associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center is incorporated into project plans. Accommodations for this trail shall be located along the approximate toe of Coral Mountain, within the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property. Conditions of Approval: The project shall be conditioned to construct the following roadway improvements as identified in the Final EIR, which will be enforceable through both the conditions of approval and the Development Agreement: Phase 1 Improvements: Improvements to Avenue 58, Madison Street, Avenue 60, and project access points, and the project's fair share contributions toward planned traffic signals and related improvements at 5 area intersections as identified in Table 4.13-20 (see pages 4.13- 29 - 4.13-33 of Draft EIR). Phase 2 Improvements: Increased fair share contributions toward planned traffic signals and related improvements at 6 area intersections as identified in Table 4.13-22 (see pages 4.13-34 - 4.13-37 of Draft EIR). Phase 3 Improvements: Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Madison St. and Avenue 58 and increased fair share contributions toward planned traffic signals at nine other intersections as identified in table 4,13-24 (see pages 4.13-37 - 4.13-41 of the Draft EIR). Finding: Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to traffic and transportation described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures TRA -1, TRA - 2, and TRA -15, and construction of the conditioned traffic improvements described above, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, Specific Plan, MMRP, and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Project Operations: Traffic related to the wave basin project activities (both construction and operational) were analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation (Draft EIR, Appendices L.1 and L.2). The TIA was prepared in accordance with the City of La Quinta's Traffic Study Guidelines (Engineering Bulletin #06-13, dated July 23, 2015) 67 and Engineering Bulletin #10-01, dated August 9, 2010, the City General Plan, and a traffic study scope reviewed and approved by City staff during the scoping process. At project buildout, the Previously Proposed Project would be 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. Under build out conditions, nine study area intersections will be impacted without the development of the Previously Proposed Project. The addition of the Previously Proposed Project would result in a total of ten impacted intersections under build out ("Phase 3") conditions. For Phase 3 traffic conditions, eight study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal in order to maintain acceptable level of service (LOS). Project and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) improvements will result in acceptable LOS for all intersections. Mitigation measure TRA -1 requires payment of the City's DIF, which funds the traffic improvements in the CIP program, which will result in less than significant impacts at all area intersections. In addition, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable volume - to -capacity ratio of 0.90 or less at buildout. The County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires a LOS E or better for regional roadways. The generation, distribution, and management of project traffic is not expected to conflict with the CMP; no CMP roadways occur in the vicinity of the project. The Previously Proposed Project and background traffic would not exceed City level of service standards or travel demand measures, or other standards established by the City or Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for designated roads or highways. Following the payment of required fees such as TUMF and DIF, as required under mitigation measures TRA -1 and TRA -2, less than significant impacts are anticipated relative to the CMP. A supplemental LOS analysis was completed for the Revised Project to evaluate whether the proposed residential, golf and neighborhood commercial uses would result in any new or substantially more severe effects than the Previously Proposed Project or Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR. (See CEQA Compliance Memo at pp. 51-55 and Appendix B.) The supplemental LOS analysis determined that the Revised Project would cause the same ten existing intersections to fall below acceptable LOS levels without mitigation as would occur under the Previously Proposed Project. Likewise, the supplemental LOS analysis determined that with implementation of mitigation measures TRA -1 and TRA -2 and the conditions of approval set forth above, all potentially effected intersections would operate at acceptable levels with the Revised Project. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe LOS related traffic impacts than were analyzed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Special Events: The Previously Proposed Project included the potential occurrence of multi -day special events at this location involving attendance of not -to -exceed 2,500 guests per day. Any event occurring prior to the build out of the project, and concurrent roadway improvements and traffic signal installations, could result in a significant impact on traffic operations. Therefore, if project special events were held prior to the construction of the Previously Proposed Pproject's Phase 3 improvements, Mitigation Measures TRA -9 and TRA -10 condition issuance of the required Temporary Use Permit on (1) completion of the required improvements or, alternatively, a focused traffic analysis demonstrating that any required improvements that have not been completed are not necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service in all locations, and (2) a special event traffic and parking plan demonstrating that the special events will not cause any significant traffic or parking impacts. In addition, Mitigation Measure TRA -11, required City and Police Department approval of a Special Event Traffic Management Plan prior to issuance of a Temporary Use Permit for any special events (whether or not the Phase 3 traffic improvements have been completed). Timing for installation of traffic management measures will be scaled to the size and duration of the event to ensure that the special events will not have any significant adverse effects. With implementation of the mitigation measures specified above, all Previously Proposed Project entries and other facilities were determined to be adequate for special event conditions, and the impacts associated with special events would have been be reduced to less than significant levels. Also see Final EIR Responses 52-n, 52-p, 83-h, and 90-e, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the City Council's findings, analysis and conclusions. Finally, the applicant agreed to a prohibition on any special events during the first two years of wave basin operations to allow the applicant and City to monitor actual wave basin operations, including traffic patterns, and to use that information to ensure that adequate conditions were imposed on any future Temporary Use Permit to avoid any significant impacts on the surrounding community. However, the wave basin and associated special events have been eliminated from the Revised Project, and therefore, there will be no associated potential traffic impacts and mitigation measures TRA -9 through TRA -14 are no longer applicable. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Interior to the project, Project Design Features (PDF) are incorporated that encourage the use of alternative transportation measures including pedestrian and bicycle travel. The project will 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. Neither the Previously Proposed Project, Alternative 2 nor the Revised Project are anticipated to result in significant impacts to existing bike lanes. Temporary impacts may occur during construction; however, any bicycle access adjacent to the project will be restored to existing conditions. Accordingly, the Revised Project will be consistent with the City's General Plan Update 2035 with respect to pedestrian and alternative transportation facilities. The Desert Recreation District Master Plan includes a proposed trail along the toe of Coral Mountain associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center. The proposed trail alignment falls within the project boundaries. As shown in Mitigation Measure TRA -15 project plans will include accommodations for this trail within the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property to assure mitigation of.... Based on the foregoing, neither the Revised Project nor the Previously Proposed Project nor Alternative 2 would conflict with any applicable plans or policies addressing the circulation system, and would not have any project - specific or cumulative adverse effects on the roadways and intersections surrounding the project (see Final EIR, pp. 2-32 - 2-35 and Appendices L.2 and L.3; and Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-17 - 4.13-51 and Appendices L.1, as well as the CEQA Compliance Memo at pp. 51-55 and Appendix B). The City Council has reviewed the Draft EIR comments raising concerns about the project, including special events increasing traffic in the area, including Comment 22-j, Comments 83-e through 83-k and the August 3, 2021 letter from Minagar & Associates attached as Exhibit 2 to Comment letter 83, and Comment 90-d. The City finds that these comments contain inaccurate statements regarding the project and the traffic study (Draft EIR Appendices L.1 and L.2), and do not contain substantial evidence of any significant transportation effects that will not be mitigated to a level of less -than - significant, nor do they contain substantial evidence of any material inaccuracies in the project traffic study and analysis. Rather, the City Council finds the Final EIR Responses to these comments to be persuasive, and hereby adopts those responses and incorporates them into the City Council's findings, analysis and conclusions regarding potential transportation impacts (Final EIR Responses 22-j, 83-e through 83-k, and 90-d). The City Council also adopts and incorporates by this reference Appendix L.3 to the Final EIR, which responds to each of the comments and issues raised the Minagar & Associates 70 letter attached as Exhibit 2 to Comment letter 83. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council further finds that the issues relating to the wave basin related special events will be avoided with the Revised Project due to the elimination of the wave basin and related resort uses. Effect of Geometric Design Features. The project has the potential to create traffic hazards if the line -of -sight from project entrances are inadequate, or if traffic queuing at project entrances exceeds the storage length of the applicable turn lanes. Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential effects relating to traffic hazards, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: TRA -3 The project proponent shall ensure that streetscape improvement plans for the project frontage on Avenue 58, Madison Street and Avenue 60, are submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the initiation of landscape or roadway improvements. TRA -4 The project proponent shall ensure that clear unobstructed sight distances are provided at all site access points and internal intersections. Sight distances shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of landscape and street improvement plans. TRA -5 The project proponent shall ensure that final layout and site access design are subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to final project approval. TRA -7 The project proponent shall ensure that traffic signing and striping plans shall be developed in conjunction with street improvement plans and submitted to the City of La Quinta for review and approval during the project approval process. TRA -8 The project proponent shall ensure that Construction Traffic Control Plans are reviewed and approved by the City prior to project construction. These plans are to be implemented during construction activities. Construction includes onsite and offsite improvements. 71 Finding: Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to traffic and transportation hazards described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures TRA -3 through TRA -5, TRA -7 and TRA -8, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, Specific Plan, MMRP, and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: The Revised Project, like the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would be developed in accordance with design guidelines included in the Specific Plan and will not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. As provided in Mitigation Measures TRA -3 and TRA -4, the project's access points will be located with adequate sight distances, which will be required to meet City standards. In addition, a queuing analysis was performed to ensure adequate turn lanes and stacking distances at all project entrances. The installation of site and landscape improvements will be required to avoid interfering with adequate sight distances. Project plans will be reviewed for any sight distance conflicts and will require approval by the City. As required in Mitigation Measures TRA -5 and TRA -7, the internal circulation system would provide adequate fire department access. Final layout and site access design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer as well as the Fire Department to ensure compliance with their established standards. As provided in Mitigation Measure TRA -8, Traffic Control Plans will be implemented during construction activities. These plans will reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic, consistent with City standards. Accordingly, the Revised Project is not anticipated to increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. Following implementation of the mitigation measures, as well as the City review and approval process for all improvement plans, impacts will be less than significant. The Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe effects than 72 analyzed in the Draft EIR Previously Proposed Project or Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR. Emergency Access. As the project will be a gated, private community under all alternatives considered in the Draft EIR (other than the neighborhood commercial area near Madison St. and Avenue 58), there is a potential for emergency access to be impeded by the access gates or other project features, and accordingly, this is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential project effects relating to emergency access, the following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: TRA -5 The project proponent shall ensure that final layout and site access design are subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to final project approval. TRA -6 The project proponent shall ensure that emergency police, fire and paramedic vehicle access are provided for the project prior to final project approval. TRA -7 The project proponent shall ensure that traffic signing and striping plans shall be developed in conjunction with street improvement plans and submitted to the City of La Quinta for review and approval during the project approval process. Finding: Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to emergency access described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measure TRA -5 through TRA -7, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, Specific Plan, MMRP, and project conditions of approval. 73 Facts in Support of Finding: For gated projects, the Fire Department requires the installation of a Knox - Box Rapid Entry System or similar device to facilitate emergency access by fire fighters and other emergency first responders (Mitigation Measure TRA - 6). The internal circulation system would provide adequate fire department access. Final layout and site access design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer as well as the Fire Department to ensure compliance with their established standards. (Mitigation Measures TRA -5 and TRA -7). Therefore, the Revised Project, like the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative B. is not anticipated to result in inadequate emergency access, and with mitigation, impacts will be less than significant. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts to Significant Tribal Cultural Resources The proposed project could have a potentially significant impact on Tribal Cultural Resources within or near the project site. In particular, the project site and the adjacent Coral Mountain contain three sites that have been determined to constitute a significant archaeological and historical resource which are also a "Tribal Cultural Resource" as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 (Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545). These three sites are situated along the eastern base of Coral Mountain and contain panels of rock art as well as other associated artifacts and features. These sites, known collectively as the "Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex," could be adversely affected by development of the Project. The project could also impact five other previously identified sites and seven isolates that were determined through Tribal consultation to have significance to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI). Additionally, construction of the project would involve ground -disturbing activities such as grading and surface excavation, with the potential to unearth or adversely impact other known or previously unidentified tribal cultural resources. These are considered significant adverse impacts. Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential project specific and cumulative effects relating to Tribal Cultural Resources, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP: TCR -1: Before ground disturbing activities begin, the applicant shall contact the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office to 74 arrange cultural monitoring. The project requires the presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt in the vicinity of the deposits, and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines), within 24 hours, to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. TCR -2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and provided to the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and activities. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. TCR -3: Before ground disturbing activities, the project's archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI's Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action to approve the plan is taken within 30 days from submission for approval. If the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office rejects two Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site. TCR -4: Before ground disturbing activities, the project's archaeologist shall prepare a Rock Art Management Plan, based on recommendations made in the report by McCarthy and Mouriquand, and shall submit the plan to the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Rock Art 75 Management Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI's Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action is taken to approve the plan within 30 days of submission for approval. If the ACBCI Historic Preservation Office rejects two Rock Art Management Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Rock Art Management Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site. TCR -5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contain the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project construction through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas; the Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be recorded on the property, and proof of recordation shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III. Nominations of these sites to the National Register of Historic Places shall be filed with the appropriate federal agency prior to the issuance of the first grading permit; and the sites shall be subject to the provisions of the Rock Art Management Plan. TCR -6: For the portion of Site 33-001715 outside the preservation area established in TCR -5, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI. A report of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI's satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. TCR -7: Prior to ground disturbance in Planning Area III, a qualified archaeologist shall complete surface collection, testing and excavation if necessary, for sites 33-1716, 33-1717, 33- 8386, 33-9001, 33-9003, 33-28907, 33-28908, 33-28909, 33-28910, 33-28911, 33-28912. A report of findings 76 including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI's satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. TCR -8: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to preserve the information on the adobe building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project's Homeowners Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre -1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun -colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al. 1998:54). TCR -9: The applicant shall coordinate with ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office to ensure there are a sufficient number of Native American monitors for the number of earth- moving machinery for each phase of development. The applicant shall provide the City with fully executed 77 monitoring agreements prior to each phase of ground disturbing activity. TCR -10: Should human remains be inadvertently discovered during ground disturbance, the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 shall be followed. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has examined the remains. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 -hours. TCR -11: Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall sign a curation agreement with the ACBCI THPO. A fully executed copy of the agreement shall be provided to the City. TCR -12: Prior to any ground disturbance, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all contractors with the staff at the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). Finding• Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to Tribal Cultural Resources described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures TCR -1 through TCR -12, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, Specific Plan, MMRP, and project conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: The City of La Quinta initiated and completed Tribal consultation as required under SB 18 and AB 52. The ACBCI requested consultation, which was conducted between February 2020 and June 2020. During consultation, ACBCI indicated that the Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex is especially important, and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) requested that this area be avoided and preserved. Mitigation Measure TCR -5 will ensure that the sites are avoided and protected in situ during any development activity through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. To provide long term protection of these sites, Mitigation Measures TCR -5 and TCR -6 require prohibition of development and the recordation of protective easements, as well as a program of research and documentation of the sites. For the balance of one of the sites, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation is required to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project (Mitigation Measure TCR -6). In addition, the project's archaeologist will be required to prepare an Archaeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan and a Rock Art Management Plan prior to ground disturbing activities. Both plans are to be submitted to the ACBCI THPO for approval, and once approved provided to the City (Mitigation Measures TCR -3 and TCR -4). Mitigation Measures TCR -3 through TCR -7 will mitigate potential disturbance of the Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex less than significant level. The project archaeologist determined that the remaining five of the eight previously identified cultural resource sites and all seven isolates, recorded within or partially within the current project area, do not constitute a unique archaeological resource or an historical resource. During Tribal consultation, however, the ACBCI disagreed. Based on their resource inventories, and the breadth and significance of resources identified in and surrounding the project site, the area is considered significant to the Tribe. The Tribe requested further surface investigation, testing, and excavation, if necessary, of these sites and isolates to assure that impacts to Tribal resources in the area are not significant. In order to assure that the impact is reduced to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measure TCR -7 requires a qualified archaeologist to complete surface collection, testing and excavation if necessary, for the sites. A report of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI's reasonable satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. Since the project is located within the ACBCI's Tribal Traditional Use Area and the Tribe's records indicate that Tribal cultural resources are located within the project area, cultural monitoring, including an ACBCI monitor, is required to address the Tribe's concern for the presence of Tribal cultural resources (Mitigation Measure TCR -1). In addition, TCR -2 and TCR -9 require monitoring on the site for all earth moving activities (including vegetation removal, grubbing, grading and excavation) by both archaeological and Tribal monitors. These monitoring activities will provide further protection of these resources. 79 In addition, as described above concerning Cultural Resources, most of the project area had been developed by the 201h century into an agricultural business known in the 1950s as the Coral Reef Ranch. At least four buildings were present on the landholdings of the ranch, all clustered on the northern edge of the project area. The remains of the ranch complex, including the partially collapsed adobe house, have been recorded into the California Historical Resources Inventory. The ranch complex has historic significance and although ACBCI stated that this site is not significant to Tribal history, it has significance to the region's early farming traditions. Significant adverse effects to this resource are avoided through mitigation measure TCR -8 and mitigation measure CUL -1 (described above concerning Cultural Resources). California law requires the protection of historic—era and Native American human burials, cremations, skeletal remains and items associated with Native American interments from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. Mitigation Measure TCR -10 provides for this with the implementation of State law relating to human remains. To further protect resources that may be uncovered during project development, Mitigation Measures TCR -11 and TCR - 12 will require a standard curation agreement with the ACBCI and construction worker sensitivity training during all aspects and phases of project construction. Together, these mitigation measures will assure that impacts to Tribal resources unearthed during all phases of project construction will be reduced to less than significant levels. For the reasons set forth above, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR -1 through TCR -12, impacts to Tribal Resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. As the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Previously Proposed Project are all located on exactly the same project site, all three scenarios have the same potential impacts concerning Tribal Cultural Resources and these findings and the analysis in the Draft EIR apply to all three. Accordingly, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe effects concerning Tribal Cultural Resources than analyzed in the Draft EIR. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The Final EIR also determined, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the following impacts associated with the project are less than significant and no mitigation is required. The City hereby adopts the findings, analysis, and conclusions regarding these potential impacts set forth in the Final EIR, including the supplemental CEQA Compliance Memo, and incorporates the same herein by this reference. AESTHETICS Effects to the Visual Character or Quality of the Site. The project will change the visual character of the site from a former ranch site and largely undeveloped desert open space to a developed low-density residential and golf course community with neighborhood serving retail uses, consistent with allowed uses under the existing General Plan and zoning. Finding: The City Council finds that the project fits with the low density residential and golf course community character of this portion of the City, and through compliance with the design guidelines in the Specific Plan and the applicable City requirements, the project's effects relating to the visual character and quality of the site will be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Facts in Support of Finding: All proposed development within the project area is required to be cohesive and complementary to the adjacent land uses by incorporating improvements such as landscaping and block walls along the perimeter of the project. The project will comply with the City standards and guidelines regarding building heights in Image Corridors within 150 feet of Avenue 58 and Madison Street, as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code, in order to reduce impacts to scenic resources, Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. In addition, the project's perimeter landscaping, block wall, and the entry points will be similar in appearance and quality to the existing communities to the north, east, and south. Likewise, the majority of the project's perimeter areas will be developed with low-density residential uses and golf course, consistent with surrounding communities (Draft EIR at p. 4.1-48). The residential and recreational uses within the project will be subject to the regulations outlined within the Specific Plan and will be consistent with the prevailing desert - themed architectural styles of other resort and residential developments in the City, including the gated residential communities to the north, Andalusia Country Club to the east, and gated residential communities to the south (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-48 - 4.1-51). The neighborhood commercial uses at the corner of Madison St. and Avenue 58 will also comply with the City's Municipal Code height requirements for commercial buildings and will not result in any significant impacts to visual character or scenic quality (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1- 51 - 4.1-53). The previously proposed wave basin, resort hotel, and other Tourist Commercial uses have been eliminated from the Revised Project, and thus will have no effects, even though the Draft EIR determined that those previously proposed uses would not be readily visible from the perimeter of the project or other off-site locations (See Draft EIR line -of -sight and visual simulations, Exhibits 4.1-4 - 4.1-13). The previously proposed wave basin lighting has also been eliminated, which eliminates a concern raised some residents in the surrounding communities. Based on the foregoing, the project will be consistent and compatible with the visual character and quality of the project site and surrounding communities and will not have any significant effects. The Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Light and Glare. The development site for the proposed project occurs on approximately 386 acres of vacant land with scattered vegetation throughout. The project site does not currently have existing sources of lighting. Presently, existing sources of fixed nighttime lighting in the project vicinity can be attributed to the existing residential areas located north, east and south of the site, which include landscape lighting along Madison Street, Avenue 58, and Avenue 60 east of Madison Street. The proposed project will result in potentially significant direct and cumulative impacts by creating a new source of light or glare which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Finding: Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the potentially significant effects related to light and glare described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, the Revised Project will have less than significant effects due to the elimination of the previously proposed wave basin lighting and compliance with the City's outdoor lighting requirements. No mitigation measures were required. The City further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2, and in fact, will have a reduced light and glare impact than the previously proposed Wave Basin Project due to the elimination of the wave basin lighting system. Facts in Support of Finding: The Project will comply with the City's outdoor lighting requirements (LQMC 9.100.150), including the permitted hours of lighting, as well as the required shielding to prevent light and glare spillage outside of the Project site (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-60 - 4.1-61). In addition, the Revised Project lighting will consist of lighting typical of residential and commercial development and will fully comply with the City's Municipal Code requirements. With respect to the previously proposed wave basin lighting system, the lighting analysis performed for the Project and included in the Draft EIR confirms that the originally -proposed 80 -foot tall wave basin lighting would not emit light outside of the immediate area of the wave basin itself, and minimal to no glare will be perceived outside the wave basin planning area (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-61 - 4.1-64 and Exhibits 4.1-14 - 4.1-19). As further explained in the Final EIR at pp. 2-5 - 2-11, the 80 -foot LED light fixtures proposed around the wave basin would have been Musco Total Lighting Control (TLC) for LED technology fixtures, 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 and avoid up -lighting and light spill to adjacent areas. As shown on page 2-10 of the Final EIR, the wave basin lighting would drop to 0.01 foot candles (FC) within or immediately adjacent to the wave basin planning area boundary, which is an imperceptible light level (also see Final EIR Appendices B.1 and B.2). The wave basin lighting system fully complies with the City's "dark skies" lighting requirements set forth in Section 9.100.150 of the Municipal Code (Draft EIR at p. 4.1-62). Finally, previously proposed mitigation measure AES -3 would have limited the wave basin lighting to the hours of dusk to 10:00 p.m., in compliance with the City's outdoor recreational lighting limitations (LQMC § 9.100.150). In response to requests made by City officials, an actual demonstration of the Musco TLC for LED lights proposed to be used for the wave basin was performed on November 17, 2021, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Two poles and lighting fixtures were staged on-site, one at the exact height and location of proposed pole 8, which is the pole closest to Coral Mountain. The other was staged at the exact height of proposed pole 16 (the pole nearest adjacent residences) but was staged approximately 135' south of the proposed location (closer to the adjacent residences) due to physical access constraints. Although only two 600 -Watt lighting fixtures are proposed for poles 8 and 16, to be conservative in disclosing impacts, four 1200 -Watt fixtures were used for both poles to provide a demonstration of the proposed lighting system that exceeds the amount of lighting proposed in these two, most -sensitive locations. Light readings were taken before and after the light fixtures were turned on and these readings validated and confirmed the computer modeling described in the Draft EIR and above. At 120 -feet behind and to the side of each pole, the light readings were consistently at 0.01 FC, an imperceptible level that matched background light levels, indicating that these locations were receiving no light from the test fixtures. These test results are included and described in Final EIR Appendix B.2, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Following the Planning Commission public hearings and recommendation for project approval, and after receiving further public comment at and prior to the City Council hearings on June 7. 2022 and July 5, 2022, the applicant submitted specifications for a revised lighting system that reduced the height of the light poles from 80 -feet to 40 -feet, and reduced the number of fixtures on each light pole from 4 to 2. Based on both the original line -of -sight exhibits contained in the Draft EIR and the revised line -of -sight exhibits submitted by the applicant on August 22, 2022, neither the light poles nor the lighting itself will be visible from outside the project's perimeter walls. See Exhibit B to James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022. Moreover, based on the August 81 2022 Memorandum from Musco Lighting and the lighting contour exhibit attached thereto, no perceptible level of light will extend outside the immediate wave basin area. See Exhibit C to James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022. Rather, the reduced height of the light poles and reduced intensity of the lighting has resulted in a reduction in overall size/extent of the 0.01 foot candle light contour, which reflects that the lighting is no longer perceptible outside the project site. The revised lighting contours take into account all aspects of the revised lighting system, which include an increase to fifty-four poles, but with only two, 550 -watt light fixtures per pole (as opposed to the four, 1,200 -watt fixtures previously proposed for some of the 80 -foot poles and used during the November 2021 lighting demonstration). See Exhibit D to James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022. This change represents a reduction in the impacts analyzed in the Draft and Final EIR. The City Council reviewed the Draft EIR comments regarding concerns raised by the public over the wave basin lighting system and its potential impacts, including Comments 52-i, 83-z, 83 -aa, 83 -bb, 83 -cc, 83-dd, and the two-page letter from Minagar & Associates, dated August 2, 2021, attached to Comment letter 83, and considered the comments made during the public hearings. Based on the information cited above in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and Appendices, and the additional evidence presented at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, the City Council finds that these comments, including the Minagar & Associates letter, do not accurately describe the proposed wave basin lighting or its effects on the surrounding communities, nor do they contain substantial evidence that the project will have any significant impacts regarding light and glare, or other aesthetic impacts, beyond what is disclosed in the Final EIR and set forth in these Findings. Instead, the City Council finds persuasive and adopts the substantial evidence, analysis, and conclusions set forth in Final EIR Responses 52-I, 83- Z, 83 -aa, 83 -bb, 83 -cc, and 83-dd, and hereby incorporates those Responses into these Findings. With respect to the "cones of light" described during the public hearings that may have been visible from outside the project boundaries with the original 80 -foot light poles, the City Council finds, based on the additional line -of -sight exhibits and other substantial evidence presented prior to and during the public hearings, that with the revised lighting system with 40 -foot poles, no portion of the wave basin lighting will be visible from outside the project boundaries. Nevertheless, the City Council determined that the wave basin, the associated lighting system, and the accompanying Tourist Commercial uses were not compatible with the surrounding low density residential and golf course communities. The City Council finds that the Revised Project addresses this concern and will have no significant adverse effects relating to light and glare. Furthermore, the Revised Project's lighting is considered consistent with the other sources of light and glare in the area and will not have any significant adverse effects on the surrounding communities or the public. The Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. AIR QUALITY Consistency with implementation of applicable air quality plans and standards. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded. The project site is located within Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and is subject to SCAQMB's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. In addition, the City enacted its Fugitive Dust Control ordinance in Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code to ensure construction projects comply with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1. Violations of, or inconsistencies with implementation of the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan or the City's Fugitive Dust Control ordinance would constitute a significant adverse effect. Create objectionable odors Neither the Previously Proposed Project nor any of the Alternatives include any of the land uses generally associated with odor complaints; the low density residential, open space recreational, and general commercial uses associated with the Revised Project are not expected to operate in a manner resulting in other emissions leading to objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed project's (long-term operational) uses. Finding: The City Council finds that the Revised Project is consistent with all applicable air quality plans and will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or contribute to a new violation, and accordingly, impacts will be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. The City Council further finds that the project's odor related impacts will be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. The City Council further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Facts in Support of Finding: The project would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds or localized significance thresholds (LST) for construction activity after implementation of the Best Available Control Methods (BACM AQ -1, AQ -2, and AQ -3) listed above (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-15 - 4.1-18)1. In addition, the project's operational emissions would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds or LST (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1.16 - 4.1-18, and Table 4.2-8 and 4.2-13). In addition, the project is consistent with the growth projections included in the 2016 AQMD. Accordingly, the project is consistent with all applicable air quality plans, including SCAQMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. Construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and are thus considered less than significant. It is expected that project -generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City's solid waste regulations. The Revised Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed project construction and operations would be less than significant. ENERGY Consumption of Energy Resources. The Revised Project, like the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2, involve construction activities on the same project site and will consume energy resources, primarily in the form of petroleum and electricity. However, there are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable construction activities, or that would violate current emissions standards (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-20 - 4.5-25; and CEQA Compliance Memo at p. 27), and therefore, construction -related impacts would be less than significant. For operational energy use, the Revised Project will use less electricity and natural gas than the Previously Proposed Project (due to the elimination of the wave basin and Tourist Commercial uses) and will use more petroleum due to the approximately 13% more daily vehicle trips (CEQA Compliance Memo, at pp. 27-29). As compared to Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR, the Pages 1 — 34 of the Air Quality Chapter of the Draft EIR (Chapter 4.2) were inadvertently mis-numbered as pages 4.1-1 through 4.1-34, instead of 4.2-1 through 4.2-34. Revised Project will use the same level of these energy resources because it proposes the same uses on the same project site. As analyzed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would not include wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of these energy resources. The Revised Project proposes a complimentary mix of uses and non -vehicular connectivity that will reduce vehicle miles traveled, and thus reduces the consumption of petroleum projects for vehicle use. In addition, the Revised Project includes energy efficiency measures that will reduce the consumption of electricity, including energy efficient windows, roof systems, electrical lighting systems, and HVAC systems, and will be compliant with Title 24 energy efficiency requirements. Impacts will be less than significant, and the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Consistency with a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency. The Revised Project is subject to CALGreen Building Codes and Title 24 codes and standards for both residential and nonresidential components of the project, as well as the City of La Quinta's GHG Reduction Plan and General Plan goals and policies for reducing energy consumption. As a result, the project is required to incorporate energy efficient design features that result in substantial reductions in energy consumption and GHG emissions, including the measures described below and in the Draft EIR. Project Design Features: Energy-saving and sustainable design features, as well as operational programs would be incorporated into the project (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-22 - 4.5-29). Because these features/attributes are integral to the project, and/or are regulatory requirements, they are not considered to be mitigation measures but will be made enforceable by the City pursuant to the Specific Plan, Development Agreement, and/or project conditions of approval. The project will require submittal to the appropriate agencies discussed in this section for review and approval of on-site design for circulation, building standards and utility installation. The following PDFs are part of the project: Specified use of Energy Star appliances Installation of water -efficient plumbing fixtures Installation of tankless water heaters -I Installation of light -emitting diode (LED) technology within homes Use of recycled water (non -potable) for common area landscape irrigation Use of drought -tolerant plants in landscape design Installation of water -efficient irrigation systems with smart sensor controls Installation of photovoltaic (PV) systems (15% of electricity supply) Installation of high efficiency lighting Applying energy efficient design building shells and components Finding: The City Council finds that compliance with existing state, regional, and City regulations, plans, and programs, in addition to the incorporation of the PDFs identified above and in the Draft EIR, including the use of energy efficient building materials and design features, would ensure that the Revised Project is consistent with all applicable state and local plans for energy efficiency and that consumption of energy resources would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, and therefore, project impacts related to energy resources will be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. The City Council further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Facts in Support of Finding: Project construction and operation will not result in significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation because the Revised Project is consistent with CALGreen Building Codes and Title 24 codes and standards for both residential and nonresidential components of the project, as well as the City of La Quinta's GHG Reduction Plan and General Plan goals and policies for reducing energy consumption (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-20 - 4.5-34). The project proposes a mixed-use development that provides complementary uses with an emphasis on connectivity and alternative modes of transportation to reduce vehicle use within the project. In addition, the mandatory PDFs identified above result in a 17.25% reduction in projected electricity, thus further avoiding any wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-25 - 4.5-28). Therefore, the Revised Project is consistent with General Plan Policy SC -1.5 and associated programs in the Livable Community Element in the General Plan. The City Council also incorporates Responses 52-k, 59-b, and 61-h, into the City Council's findings, analysis, and conclusions regarding the project's energy use. As compared to the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project will use less electricity and natural gas due the elimination of the wave basin and other Tourist Commercial uses. While the Revised Project will generate approximately 13% more daily vehicle trips, and thus increased use of petroleum products, these increases are not considered substantial and will not result in the wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts will be less than significant, and the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Direct or Indirect Effects Involving Strong Seismic Shaking or Landsides• Strong Seismic Shaking: The project site is located approximately 7.75 miles southwest of the closest active fault zone, the San Andreas Fault. The Geotechnical Investigation states that due to the multiple active faults in the project's vicinity, the site has been subjected to past ground shaking, and strong seismic shaking is expected during the design life of the proposed project. Landslides: Coral Mountain, an elevated topographic feature defines the project property's southwest boundary, is identified in the City's General Plan as having a high or very high possibility of earthquake induced slope instability and potential for soil block slides, soil slumps, and rock falls. Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil: The project site is located in an area defined in the City's General Plan as having high and very high susceptibility to wind erosion. The project site is also subject to potential waterborne erosion. Project development has the potential to cause significant adverse erosion effects, including the generation of fugitive dust. Finding: The City Council finds that compliance with existing state, regional, and City regulations, plans, and programs will avoid significant risks from strong .E seismic shaking, landslides and soil erosion, and these geology and soils impacts would be less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding: The Revised Project will be required to comply with the most current seismic design coefficients and ground motion parameters in the California Building Code, and all site work will be conducted in accordance with the project - specific geotechnical and soils analysis, and therefore, impacts from strong seismic groundshaking are expected to be less than significant. The project does not propose any development at the base of Coral Mountain and the closest habitable structure would be located approximately 170 feet away. Accordingly, impacts relating to landslides will be less than significant. The project is required to implement the Coachella Valley PM10 Plan to avoid windblown sand from leaving the site. The project will also be required to implement a SWPPP to avoid stormwater from carrying soil or sand from the site. Finally, the project will require a Water Quality Management Plan for long-term operations to prevent soil or contaminants from being washed from the site. Compliance with these legal requirements will ensure that impacts relating to soil erosion are less than significant. As with the Previously Proposed P and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR, the Revised Project requires compliance with existing state, regional, and City regulations, plans, and programs, which will avoid significant risks from strong seismic shaking, landslides and soil erosion, and these geology and soils impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Consistency with Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation. The project's construction and operations will generate some additional GHG emissions, and to the extent those emissions conflict with the CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan or the City's GHG Reduction Plan, the project would have a significant adverse effect. Finding: 91 The City Council finds that the Revised Project is consistent with the applicable CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, as described in detail on pages 4.7- 20 through 4.7-25 of the Draft EIR, which analysis and conclusions are incorporated by this reference, and based thereon, finds that the Revised Project will not have any significant impacts relating to inconsistencies with applicable GHG plans, policies or regulations. Facts in Support of Finding: The facts in support of this finding are set forth in Table 4.7-9 of the Draft EIR (Scoping Plan Consistency Summary and pages 33 - 35 of the CEQA Compliance Memo, which demonstrate that the project does not conflict with any of the plan components and supports seven of the Plan's action categories. In addition, the City Council reviewed and considered the Draft EIR comments relating to GHG emissions, including Comments 52-k, 79-h, 79-I and 79-q (which is a letter from SWAPE attached as Exhibit A to Comment letter 79), as well as the subsequent letters from Mitchell Tsai dated March 22, April 12, and April 26, 2022, and from SWAPE dated April 6, 2022. The City Council finds that these comments lack merit and fail to provide any substantial evidence of any new or more severe significant adverse effects relating to GHG emissions, beyond what is described above and in the Draft EIR, or of any inaccuracies in the Draft EIR or technical studies. Rather, the City Council finds Final EIR Responses 52-k, 79-h, 79-I and 79-q persuasive, and hereby adopts those responses and incorporates them into the City Council's findings, analysis and conclusions regarding GHG emissions. The City Council further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, Including Accidental Release The Revised Project will use oils, fuels, and other potentially flammable substances and materials in connection with construction activities. While the Previously Proposed Project operations would have included the transport, storage and use of sodium hypochlorite and sulfuric acid to treat and disinfect the wave basin, as well as other cleaning agents, building maintenance products, paints, solvents, fertilizers, and similar substances in amounts typical for resort projects, the chemicals specific to the wave basin will not be required in the previously analyzed quantities due to the elimination of the wave basin. The Revised Project will use cleaning agents, building 92 maintenance products, solvents, fertilizers and similar substances in quantities typical of a low-density residential and golf course community. Effect on an Emergency Response Plan Project implementation will not interfere with the critical facilities, emergency transportation and circulation, or emergency preparedness coordination as set forth in the Emergency Services Element of the 2035 La Quinta General Plan and the City's Emergency Operations Plan (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.8-21 - 4.8-23). Prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department will review each sub -area plan as it is brought forward, to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access, and project impacts will be less than significant (Draft EIR, at p. 4.8-23). Risk of Wildfires The project site, located on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, is currently vacant with scattered desert vegetation. Existing land uses that surround the project include a mix of residential uses and vacant, undeveloped land. According to CALFIRE's Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsible Areas Map, the project site is not located in a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Additionally, CALFIRE's Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in Locally Responsible Areas (LRAs) Map indicates that the project is located in a Local, State/Federal non-VHFHSZ area. Therefore, impacts of exposing people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires will be less than significant (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.8-23 - 4.8-24). Other Potential Hazards During the public review period for the Draft EIR, members of the public raised questions regarding whether the water temperature of the wave basin could reach temperatures that could be harmful to surfers, including from "brain eating ameba." These concerns are addressed in the Final EIR Responses 65- c and 77-u, and in Appendix M.2, which are hereby adopted by the City Council and incorporated in its findings, analysis and conclusions. As stated in those Responses, the size of the wave basin, the circulating wave action, and the relatively cooler temperatures at night avoid the risk of water temperatures reaching unsafe levels. In addition, the project is subject to Riverside County and State of California Department of Health regulations that ensure the water is properly treated and maintained to avoid any risk of unsafe bacteria levels. The Council finds the substantial evidence provided in those Responses demonstrates that the wave basin operations will not subject surfers or others to hazardous or unsafe water condition. Nevertheless, the previously proposed 93 wave basin has been eliminated from the Revised Project, thus also avoiding these concerns. Finding: The City Council finds that compliance with existing federal, state, regional, and City regulations will ensure impacts related to the Revised Project's construction and operations, including the maintenance of the golf course, recreational areas, and landscaped areas (i.e., disinfectants, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.), the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials, the potential effects on emergency response plans, the risk of wildfires, and other potential hazards will be less than significant. The City Council further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Facts in Support of Finding: The Revised Project is subject to all applicable permitting and hazardous material handling requirements of Riverside County Municipal Code Chapter 8.64 and California Health & Safety Code Chapter 6.95, which ensures that the project will not have any significant adverse effects relating to the transport, use, storage, or accidental release of hazardous materials (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.8-19 - 4.8-20). Also see Final EIR Responses 52-1 and 65-c, which are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in the City Council's findings, analysis and conclusions. Finally, the City Council rejects the assertion in the letter from Mitchell Tsai, dated April 26, 2022, that the EIR's analysis of hazardous materials is inadequate because it failed to include a Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) and because it did not specifically analyze "contaminants of emerging concern" or "CEC," including "per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances." Rather, the City Council finds that the EIR properly determined that project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites, and that there is no evidence of any hazardous materials on the project site (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.8-20 - 4.8-21). The City Council finds that neither a Phase I ESA or a separate analysis of CFCs is warranted or appropriate under CEQA given the particular facts and circumstances of the project and project site. In addition, as explained above and in the Draft EIR, the project is not located in a Moderate, High or Very High Fire Hazard Area and all implementing plans will be reviewed by the police and fire departments, so impacts relating to wildfires and emergency response plans will be less than significant. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements During construction and operation (life of the project), implementation of the proposed development will be required to comply with CWA, NPDES, state, and local regulations to prevent violations or impacts to surface water quality standards and waste discharge requirements pertinent to surface or ground water quality. These requirements include development and implementation of a project -specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and compliance with NPDES General Permit, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-00014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ, during all construction activities (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-16 and 4.9-17). The project is also required to develop and implement a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and to comply with the NPDES Order No. R7-2013-0011 (Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) within the Whitewater River Watershed) during long- term operations (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-18 - 4.9-19). Effect on Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge The Revised Project will increase demand for potable and non -potable water as a result of developing currently vacant land with residential and golf course uses. The project's long-term water demand, and the availability of adequate water supplies, including from groundwater in the Indio subbasin, were evaluated in a project -specific Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification approved by CVWD ("WSA/WSV"), and the WSA/WSV approved by CVWD for the Revised Project (see CEQA Compliance Memo, at pp. 66- 67, and Appendix D). The Revised Project's total water demand is projected to be 1,217.01 acre feet per year (AFY), which accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of the total projected growth in water demand by 2045 presented in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-19 and 4.19- 20). In addition, the WSA/WSV and the Indio Subbasin Groundwater Management Plan Update confirm that CVWD has adequate water supplies to serve the project and all other existing and planned future uses without substantially decreasing groundwater supplies. Finally, the project will not cause any direct or indirect impacts to the Thomas Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility or otherwise interfere with CVWD's ongoing groundwater replenishment activities. Accordingly, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and 95 disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Potential Impacts From Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns Existing conditions across the project site are characterized by leveled terrain with scattered vegetation coverage resulting from past site clearing and agricultural operations on most of the property. The proposed uses will result in an increase in impervious surfaces that, without engineering controls, would result in an increase in total stormwater runoff volume, an increase in runoff velocity, and the potential to cause erosion impacts, flooding, and polluted runoff. However, as required through the City's engineering standards for land subdivisions and development, the project will incorporate on-site drainage and flood control improvements to intercept, convey, and retain stormwater runoff from the controlling 100 -year storm event. Inundation by Flooding, Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow The project is located in FEMA's Zone X designation, which applies to areas with "reduced flood risk due to levee." In this case, the project is protected from flood inundation by CVWD's Dike No. 2 and Dike No. 4. The project is not located near any coastal areas where tsunami damage is a risk. Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan As discussed above, the project is required to comply with the applicable water control plans during both construction and for the life of the project. The project's consistency with the applicable Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan is also discussed above. Finding: The City Council finds that the Revised Project will not have any significant adverse effects relating to hydrology and water quality, including causing any violations of water quality standards or discharge requirements, causing any flooding or water quality impacts resulting from alterations to the existing drainage patterns in the area, creating any risk of release of pollutants, or conflicting with any water control plan. In addition, the City Council finds that the project will not have any significant adverse effects on existing or future groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with CVWD's ongoing groundwater recharge efforts. Finally, the City Council finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Facts Supporting Findings: Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements During the construction phase compliance with water quality and waste discharge requirements will be achieved through the permit registration and coverage process under the NPDES General Permit identified above. This will require development and implementation of a project -specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes a strategy of BMPs that prevent pollution from leaving the site (see Draft EIR, at p. 4.9-17). During the life of the project, the water quality standards and discharge requirements will be met through compliance with the NPDES permit identified above, including developing and implementing a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) demonstrating site design and source controls that prevent pollutant runoff and meet 100 percent of the Low Impact Development (LID) Site Design requirements, including the use of retention basins on-site. Compliance with these established regulatory requirements will ensure that the Revised Project will not violate any water quality or waste discharge requirements, and impacts will be less than significant. Effect on Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge The Draft EIR incorporates information from the WSA/WSV approved by CVWD as required by Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines (Draft EIR, Appendix M). Likewise, the Final EIR and CEQA Compliance Memo incorporates information from the subsequent WSA/WSV approved by CVWD for the Revised Project. For this Revised Project, the City requested that CVWD prepare and approve a WSA/WSV. CVWD will be the public water supplier for the project with the source of domestic (potable) water supply for the project being the Indio Subbasin via CVWD's potable water distribution system. CVWD approved a WSA/WSV providing an assessment and verification of the availability of sufficient water supplies during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years over a 20 -year projection period to meet the projected demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future water demands of CVWD as required by the Water Code. The project's total water demand is projected to be 1217.01 acre feet per year (AFY), which accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of the total projected growth in water demand by 2045 presented in 97 the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (See Appendix D to CEQA Compliance Memo, at p. 44). Conditions in the Indio Subbasin are continually being assessed and quantified in management plans developed and implemented by CVWD. In December 2021, CVWD approved the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, which provides the most current assessment of the subbasin and other water supplies, including consideration of the potential for extended extreme drought conditions. The Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update analyzes several scenarios over the 50 -year period required by SGMA to address potential future water supply conditions, changes in land use, and implementation of water management projects including source substitution and new water supply projects. Climate change conditions were considered in all of these scenarios. To account for the potential effects of future climate change, the projections assume CVWD will contribute water to California's Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan allotment for Colorado River water. Under this plan, CVWD is obligated to contribute approximately 14,000 to 24,500 AFY, which equals about 7 percent of California's total contribution, to prevent Lake Mead water levels reaching critically low levels (see Final EIR, at pp. 2-23 - 2-25). The modeling of these scenarios shows that implementation of water management projects that are already planned and CVWD's ongoing management actions can maintain the water balance in the Indio Subbasin, even with the expected effects of future climate change in the Colorado River Basin and on the State Water Project (see Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, pp. ES -9 - ES -12, p. 7-89, and Figures ES -6 and ES -8). Accordingly, this information supports the conclusions in the DEIR that the project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the Indio Subbasin. Moreover, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2 because under all three scenarios, CVWD approved a WSA/WSV providing an assessment and verification of the availability of sufficient water supplies during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years over a 20 -year projection period to meet the projected demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future water demands of CVWD as required by the Water Code. Groundwater Recharge Efforts: The nearest groundwater recharge facility to the project is the Thomas Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility, located south of the project and separated from it by Dike No. 4. The proposed development will not result in any physical modifications to the existing CVWD Elm recharge facility, nor will it result in any stormwater runoff condition capable of interfering with the facility operation. Surface and underground retention result in infiltration and therefore contribute to on-site groundwater recharge. Existing off-site tributary runoff is also incorporated into the on-site retention system, such that the project will not impede the existing naturally occurring infiltration. Less than significant impacts are anticipated pertaining to interference with groundwater recharge (Draft EIR, at p. 4.9-22). Potential Impacts From Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns Erosion or Siltation. For every drainage area associated with project implementation, the retention facilities will meet the City's requirements and will have varying amounts of surplus capacity. By conveying project runoff along engineered flow lines (pipes, surface swales, curb and gutter) instances of substantial erosion or siltation will be prevented. The on-site pervious areas of the project will be stabilized in accordance with approved landscaping plans. All on-site impervious and pervious land cover resulting from project implementation, including the storm drain system and surface basins, will be subject to proper operation and maintenance during the life of the project, as mandated by the WQMP agreement that will be required of this project prior to issuance of a grading permit. Therefore, less than significant impacts are expected pertaining to substantial erosion or siltation, on- or off-site (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-22 - 4.9-24). Substantially Increase Surface Runoff Water Causing Flooding. As a standard requirement under the City's Engineering Bulletin #06-16, the hydrology and storm drain design must account for flood protection of structures from the 100 -year storm. Off-site flows from the tributary hillside areas to the west are also handled by the project through retention facilities to be constructed on-site. As such, the proposed storm drainage and flood control improvements will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-24 - 4.9-25). Therefore, the impact is less than significant. Exceed Stormwater Drainage Systems or Cause Polluted Runoff. The proposed development will incorporate on-site storm drain system improvements designed to capture and infiltrate stormwater runoff through retention facilities corresponding to each on-site drainage management area. Pertaining to runoff pollution, the on-site storm drain system's detention system will capture project area runoff in accordance with a WQMP, preventing uncontrolled release into any public MS4 facilities. Therefore, the project will not result in stormwater runoff conditions which would burden the City's existing MS4 capacity, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-25 - 4.9-26). Therefore, the impact will be less than significant. Impacts to Flood Flows. The project site is not located in an area with mapped flood flows, such as FEMA -designated floodways, nor are there any naturally occurring drainage courses. The site exhibits a relatively flat condition having resulted from prior agricultural land uses. The only known surface flows are those directly resulting from rain events and following the shallow elevation gradients. The project allocates space for stormwater retention facilities sized based on a Master Hydrology Report. Flood flows are not present on or around the project site, such that impedance, obstruction, or redirection would result from project implementation, and accordingly, impacts will be less than significant (Draft EIR at p. 4.9-26). Inundation by Flooding, Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow The project is not located in any mapped seiche zones, such as those associated with large bodies of water, the proposed development no longer includes the wave basin that would have been capable of creating mechanical waves in excess of 6 feet tall with the dissipation of that energy is calculated into the sloped edges. Accordingly, the Revised Project will not have any potentially significant effects relating to seiches. The proposed land uses and facilities are not expected to involve the storage or handling of substantial amounts of chemicals, petroleum products or other hazardous materials, such that pollutant release would occur in the event of inundation. Project operations will involve the use of pollution prevention source control measures under the Final WQMP. These measures include restrictions to prevent contact between potential pollutants and stormwater facilities, including inlets, conveyances, and retention areas. All proposed on- site retention basins are designed with sufficient capacity and freeboard to adequately contain the controlling 100 -year storm event, thus preventing ponding and other uncontrolled drainage conditions that could allow for pollutant releases (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-27 and 4.9-28). Therefore, the impact is less than significant. The project is not located near any coastal areas and therefore is not prone to tsunami hazards. No impacts are associated with this aspect (Draft EIR, at 4.9-27). Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan 100 The project proponent is required to implement a project -specific WQMP to comply with the most current standards of the Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff, Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit. The WQMP includes guidelines for facility maintenance, pool water drainage, and other operations aimed at complying with local surface water quality requirements. The WQMP will incorporate grading, hydrology, and other plans to document the site design, source controls, and treatment controls with a required operation and maintenance program to comply with water quality objectives. Moreover, the project's storm water retention facilities will ensure that urban runoff is recharged into the ground via infiltration (Draft EIR, at p. 4.9-28). Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. LAND USE Consistency with Any Land Use Plan, Policy or Regulation. The Revised Project proposes development of a low-density residential and golf course community with neighborhood commercial uses in the northeast corner, consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations. The Revised Project includes applications for technical amendments to the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map to make minor modifications to internal boundaries between allowed uses, but does not propose to change or intensify the allowed uses. The Draft EIR evaluated the Previously Proposed Project's consistency with the City's 2035 General Plan Update goals and policies regarding Land Use, Circulation, Livable Communities, Economic Development, Parks, Recreation and Trails, Housing, Water Resources, Open Space and Conservation, Noise, Soils and Geology, Flooding and Hydrology, Hazardous Materials, Emergency Services, and Water, Sewer, and other Utilities. After evaluating the applicable goals and policies in each of these portions of the City's General Plan, the Draft EIR describes the reason the Previously Proposed Project would be considered consistent with those goals and polices of the General Plan (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.10-15 - 4.10-24). The project's consistency with the other chapters of the General Plan were also evaluated and found consistent in the corresponding chapters of the Draft EIR (Air Quality in Chapter 4.2 of the Draft EIR, Biological Resources in Chapter 4.3, Cultural Resources in Chapter 4.4, Energy in Chapter 4.5, and Public Facilities/Services in Chapter 4.12). With implementation of all identified mitigation measures and project design features, the Draft EIR concluded that the Previously Proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan with respect to all chapters, and would not have any significant cumulative land use and planning impacts. 101 Like Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR, the Revised Project would implement the same residential, golf course, and commercial uses allowed under the existing Specific Plan SP -03-067 and 2035 General Plan. As compared to the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would have reduced land use and planning impacts because the Revised Project does not propose to add the wave basin or other Tourist Commercial uses, which would require a substantive amendment to the General Plan and the existing zoning. Findings: The City Council hereby adopts and incorporates herein the findings, analysis and conclusions set forth in the Draft EIR, and further specifically finds that the project is consistent with the General Plan as to each and every of these chapters. The City Council also finds that the project Specific Plan will serve as the regulatory document providing the zoning requirements and restrictions for the project, and therefore, the project will be fully consistent with the applicable zoning. The City Council also specifically finds that the project is consistent with the character of the surrounding residential and golf course communities. Finally, the City Council finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Facts Supporting Findings: The Revised Project has been designed to maintain low-density residential development along all of the perimeter arterial roadways and will be visually consistent and compatible with the other development along Madison Street, Avenue 58 and Avenue 60. The neighborhood serving commercial will complement the existing and planned future residential communities and reduce the need for lengthy trips for basic residential commercial needs of the residents. The previously proposed hotel, wave basin and related tourist commercial uses have been eliminated. The City Council has reviewed the asserted General Plan inconsistencies set forth in Draft EIR comments 41-c and 83-v through 83-jj and finds those asserted inconsistencies to be lacking in any merit or substantial evidence. The City Council has also reviewed the Final EIR Responses 41-c and 83-v through 83-jj and finds those responses persuasive. Responses 41-c and 83- v through 83-jj set forth in the Final EIR are hereby specifically adopted by the City Council and hereby incorporated into its findings, analysis and conclusions regarding the project's consistency with the City's General Plan to the extent still applicable after elimination of the wave basin and other tourist commercial uses. 102 Finally, the City Council reviewed Draft EIR comments 52-f, 52-g, and the other public comments asserting that the project's allowance of short-term vacation rentals (STVRs), pursuant to the terms of the proposed Development Agreement, is inconsistent with the General Plan and would have adverse environmental effects that have not been fully analyzed or disclosed. The City Council finds those assertions to be lacking in merit and in any substantial evidence, and further finds that the allowance of STVRs in the project pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Development Agreement will not be inconsistent with the City's General Plan or have any undisclosed or unmitigated adverse environmental effects (other than as set forth in Section III of these Findings). The City Council also notes that STVRs are already allowed under the site's existing entitlements. The City Council has also reviewed the Final EIR Responses 52-f and 52-g, and hereby adopts those responses and incorporates them by this reference into the City Council's findings, analysis and conclusions regarding the allowance of STVRs. Finally, the City Council accepts and relies upon the City staff reports on STVRs in the City of La Quinta, dated March 1, 2022 and June 7, 2022, which demonstrate that STVRs located in certain "'exempt" areas of the City have extremely low complaint rates, as compared with the City's "non-exempt" neighborhoods. NOISE Generation of Ground Borne Vibration. The Final EIR analyzed the potential impacts of vibration created by the proposed project. Potential ground -borne vibration is associated with vehicular traffic and construction activities. Findings: The City Council finds that the project's impacts relating to the generation of ground borne vibration will be less than significant. The City Council further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Facts in Support of Findings: As described in the Draft EIR, ground -borne vibration levels from automobile traffic, including heavy trucks, are rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and the project generated traffic would not cause any significant adverse effects, including on the surrounding residential communities (Draft EIR, at p. 4.11-50). 103 To evaluate potential construction -related vibration, ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment were analyzed, and as determined in the Noise Study, vibration levels at all nearby sensitive receptor locations would be below the perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec. (Draft EIR, Table 4.11-27). Accordingly, potential impacts from the generation of ground borne vibration and ground borne noise by project construction activities would be less than significant. PUBLIC SERVICES The Draft EIR analyzes the project's potential effects relating to the provision of public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.12-9 - 4.12-15). The project will add residents, workers, and visitors to the project site, which will cause incremental increases in the demand for these public services. Findings: The City Council finds that the project's impacts on public services, including police services, fire protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities will be less than significant. The City Council further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Facts in Support of Findings: As described in the Draft EIR, with payment of the applicable City Development Impact Fees (DIF) and statutory school developer fees, the Revised Project will not have any significant project -specific or cumulative adverse effects on public services. Specifically, the Revised Project is required to pay the City's DIF in the amount in effect at the time of construction (the current DIF is $9,380 per residential unit) (Draft EIR at p. 4.12-11). These fees are used by the City to fund additional public facilities, including fire stations, police cars and facilities, parks, public buildings, and traffic improvements. With respect to emergency services, the nearest fire station is located within 2 miles of the project site and the Revised Project can be adequately served without the need for additional facilities (Draft EIR, at p. 4.12-10). No additional police facilities are anticipated to be required to serve the Revised Project, but the La Quinta Police Department may increase staffing to maintain its ratio of officers to residents (currently approximately 1.25 officers per 1,000 residents) (Draft EIR, at p. 4.12-11). 104 With respect to schools, pursuant to Government Code §§ 65995 et seq., the payment of statutory school fees is deemed to be full and complete mitigation for a project's impacts on schools, and the Revised Project is subject to those fees. With respect to parks, the City currently exceeds its General Plan policy of providing a minimum of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents and exceeds the amount of parkland required under Quimby. In addition, the Revised Project proposes a golf course, additional recreational open space and private recreational facilities that will substantially reduce the demands the project residents will put on City park facilities. With payment of the City's DIF, impacts are expected to be less than significant. The Revised Project will also generate transient occupancy taxes and sales tax that will add to the City's general fund, which is used to fund police and fire services, which is of particular importance for development in this portion of the City because the City will not receive any portion of the property taxes from this area until existing redevelopment bonds (issued by Riverside County before annexation into the City) are fully paid, which is not expected to occur until approximately 2035. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Require or Result in Construction of New or Expanded Facilities for Water, Wastewater, Drainage or Utilities. The Draft EIR analyzes the construction of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater, drainage, and utilities, and whether the construction of such facilities would have any significant adverse effect. Water: As noted in CVWD's Comment 10-a and Final EIR Response 10-a, the project will require implementation of the previously planned water line extension in Avenue 60, west of Madison Street, to connect the project to CVWD's existing water facilities, which will be located in the existing disturbed right -of way and will not have any significant adverse effects, as described on page 2-52 of the Final EIR. In addition, the project's final engineering plans will undergo additional review by CVWD to assure compliance with all applicable requirements. Accordingly, the project will not have any project - specific or cumulative adverse effects relating to water infrastructure. Wastewater Facilities: The project will not have any significant project -specific or cumulative adverse effects concerning wastewater facilities because 105 CVWD's existing Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) has adequate capacity to serve the project (which will add approximately 3.3 percent to the existing flows to WRP-4), and because the project will connect to CVWD's existing sewer mains adjacent to the project site, which have adequate capacity to convey the additional flows from the project (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-17 - 4.15-18, and 4.15-32). In addition, the project's final engineering plans will undergo additional review by CVWD to assure compliance with all applicable requirements. The Revised Project will have somewhat reduced wastewater flows, as compared to the Previously Proposed Project, due to the elimination of the hotel and tourist commercial uses, under all three scenarios (including Alternative 2 in the Draft EIR), impacts are less than significant. Storm Water Facilities: Pursuant to the project -specific Master Plan Hydrology Report (Draft EIR, Appendix J.3), the project provides sufficient on-site storm water retention to retain flows from the 100 -year storm event, including flows coming onto the site from adjacent roadways, consistent with City requirements, including La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-16. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-18 - 4.15-21). Electrical Facilities: The project site is located within the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) service area for electric service. The project may be required to install twelve, 6 -inch conduits along Avenue 58 to bring additional power to the site and install a transformer bank at IID's existing substation yard located at Avenue 58 and Monroe Street (Draft EIR, at p. 4.15-21). These facilities were included in the project description and their potential adverse effects were fully evaluated in the Draft EIR and found to be less than significant because all improvements will occur on the substation site and previously disturbed road right-of-way. As discussed in the finding regarding energy above, and in Chapter 4.5 of the Draft EIR, the Previously Proposed Project was expected to require approximately 8,642,729 kWh of electricity per year, whereas the Revised Project is anticipated to use approximately 41% less electricity (in each case the energy use constitutes substantially less than one percent of IID's total estimated demand in 2031, and IID has adequate capacity to serve the project and all other current and planned future users within its service area. Accordingly, impacts relating to electrical facilities are less than significant (Draft EIR, at pp, 4.15-21 - 4.15-22). Other Facilities: Natural gas and telecommunications/cable facilities are currently located adjacent to the project site along Madison Street and Avenue 58, and as analyzed in the Draft EIR, the utility providers (SoCal Gas, Frontier, and Charter Communications) can serve the project without the need for to construct new or expanded facilities (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-22 - 4.15-23). Accordingly, impacts will be less than significant. 106 Sufficiency of Water Supplies To determine the adequacy of available water supplies to serve the Previously Proposed Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, the Draft EIR incorporates information from the WSA/WSV approved by CVWD as required by Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines (Draft EIR, Appendix M). For the Revised Project, the City requested that CVWD prepare and approve an updated WSA/WSV, which is attached to the CEQA Compliance Memo as Appendix D. CVWD will be the public water supplier for the project with the source of domestic (potable) water supply for the project being the Indio Subbasin via CVWD's potable water distribution system. CVWD approved a WSA/WSV providing an assessment and verification of the availability of sufficient water supplies during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years over a 20 -year projection period to meet the projected demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future water demands of CVWD as required by the Water Code. The Revised Project's total water demand is projected to be 1217.01 acre feet per year (AFY), which accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of the total projected growth in water demand by 2045 presented in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (See Appendix D to CEQA Compliance Memo, at p. 44). Wastewater Treatment System Capacity CVWD provides sanitary sewer service to the project, and the capacity of CVWD's wastewater treatment facilities are addressed in the Draft EIR at pp. 4.15-17 through 4.15-18, and 4.5-32. The project will connect to existing sewer mains located adjacent to the project, and the project will add approximately 3.3 percent to the existing flows to CVWD's existing Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4). Generate Excess Solid Waste As described on pages 4.15-32 and 4.15-33 of the Draft EIR, the project is projected to generate 581.6 tons of solid waste per year, which equals 3,574.5 cubic yards of solid waste per year. Solid waste from the City of La Quinta is transported to the Edom Hill Transfer Station, and then sent to the Lamb Canyon Landfill (8.7 million tons of remaining capacity) or the Badlands Landfill (5.1 million tons of remaining capacity) (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-4 and 4.15-5). Comply with Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste. 107 The project is required to comply with the mandatory commercial and residential recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341 and the Cal Green requirement for a construction waste management plan that includes diversion of at least 65% of construction and demolition materials from landfills, through recycling and/or reuse (Draft EIR, at p. 4.15-33). Findings: The City Council finds that the Revised Project's impacts concerning utilities and service systems will be less than significant. The City Council finds that the new and expanded utilities facilities to be constructed as part of the project, including the upgraded electrical substation, additional electrical conduit, and water line extension, will not have any significant adverse effects. The City Council further finds that there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the Revised Project and all reasonably foreseeable future development, as well as all existing uses within the Indio Subbasin, during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and further finds that the project's impacts relating to water use are less than significant. The City Council also finds that there is adequate capacity in CVWD's wastewater treatment system and Riverside County Department of Waste Resources' landfills to meet the Revised Project's wastewater and solid waste demands and finds that the project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies, and guidelines. Finally, the City Council finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Facts in Support of Findings: Require or Result in Construction of New or Expanded Facilities for Water, Wastewater, Drainage or Utilities. Water: As noted in CVWD's Comment 10-a and Final EIR Response 10-a, the project will require implementation of the previously planned water line extension in Avenue 60, west of Madison Street, to connect the project to CVWD's existing water facilities, which will be located in the existing disturbed right -of way and will not have any significant adverse effects, as described on page 2-52 of the Final EIR. In addition, the project's final engineering plans will undergo additional review by CVWD to assure compliance with all applicable requirements. Accordingly, the project will not have any project - specific or cumulative adverse effects relating to water infrastructure. Wastewater Facilities: The project will not have any significant project -specific or cumulative adverse effects concerning wastewater facilities because CVWD's existing Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) has adequate W: capacity to serve the project (which will add approximately 3.3 percent to the existing flows to WRP-4), and because the project will connect to CVWD's existing sewer mains adjacent to the project site, which have adequate capacity to convey the additional flows from the project (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-17 - 4.15-18, and 4.15-32). In addition, the project's final engineering plans will undergo additional review by CVWD to assure compliance with all applicable requirements. Storm Water Facilities: Pursuant to the project -specific Master Plan Hydrology Report (Draft EIR, Appendix 13), the project provides sufficient on-site storm water retention to retain flows from the 100 -year storm event, including flows coming onto the site from adjacent roadways, consistent with City requirements, including La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-16. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-18 - 4.15-21). Electrical Facilities: The project site is located within the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) service area for electric service. The project may be required to install twelve, 6 -inch conduits along Avenue 58 to bring additional power to the site and install a transformer bank at IID's existing substation yard located at Avenue 58 and Monroe Street (Draft EIR, at p. 4.15-21). These facilities were included in the project description and their potential adverse effects were fully evaluated in the Draft EIR and found to be less than significant because all improvements will occur on the substation site and previously disturbed road right-of-way. As discussed in the finding regarding energy above, IID has adequate generation capacity to serve the project and all other current and planned future users within its service area. Accordingly, impacts relating to electrical facilities are less than significant (Draft EIR, at pp, 4.15- 21 - 4.15-22). Other Facilities: Natural gas and telecommunications/cable facilities are currently located adjacent to the project site along Madison Street and Avenue 58, and as analyzed in the Draft EIR, the utility providers (SoCal Gas, Frontier, and Charter Communications) can serve the project without the need for to construct new or expanded facilities (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-22 - 4.15-23). Accordingly, impacts will be less than significant. Sufficiency of Water Supplies Approved WSA/WSV Water Demand Estimate CVWD approved a WSA/WSV for the Revised Project providing an assessment and verification of the availability of sufficient water supplies during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years over a 20 -year projection period to meet the projected demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future water demands of CVWD as required by the Water Code. The Revised 109 Project's total water demand is projected to be 1217.01 acre feet per year (AFY), which accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of the total projected growth in water demand by 2045 presented in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (See Appendix D to CEQA Compliance Memo, at p. 44). The Revised Project's outdoor water use is calculated pursuant to the express requirements of CVWD Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.4. While this total water demand estimate for the Revised Project is greater than estimated for the Previously Proposed Project, the impacts remain less than significant because the CVWD approved WSA/WSV confirms and verifies that CVWD has adequate water supplies to serve the project and all other existing and planned future uses. Therefore, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR. The Revised Project also includes significant water reduction and sustainability measures, consistent with City and CVWD requirements. Specifically, as described on page 4.15-16 of the Draft EIR, the following water conservation measures are standard requirements of the City and CVWD landscape ordinances and applicable state law requirements, and will be implemented at the project to ensure the most efficient use of water resources for the proposed uses, and to meet the applicable Water Management Plan goals throughout the life of the project: 1. Native plant materials and other drought tolerant plants shall be used in all in all non -turf areas of project landscaping. Large expanses of lawn and other water - intensive landscaped areas shall be kept to the minimum necessary an d consistent with the functional and aesthetic needs of the project, while providing soil s tability to resist erosion. 2. In the event recycled water becomes available to the project, the pote ntial use of tertiary treated water will be reviewed to determine feasibility of its use for ons ite landscaped areas to reduce the use of groundwater for irrigation. 3. The installation and maintenance of efficient onsite irrigation systems will minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize effective watering of plant roots. Drip irrigation and moisture detectors will be used to the greatest extent practicable t o increase irrigation efficiency. 110 4. The use of low -flush toilets and water conserving showerheads and faucets shall be required in conformance with Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code and applicable sections of Title 24 of the State Building Code. 5. Project developers will pay any required CVWD groundwater replenish ment fees for the purpose of buying additional supplies of water for im portation into the basin. Approved WSA/WSV Water Supplies and Entitlements: The WSA/WSV approved by CVWD also includes identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply for the project and quantities of water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, contracts, and agreements. In reviewing those sources, including an examination of the current condition of the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, the WSA/WSV concluded that the water supplies available from the Indio Subbasin, the State Water Project (SWP), the Colorado River, and other sources will be adequate to supply the project and all other existing and planned uses in accordance with California Water Code Section 10910 et seq., as further described in the Draft EIR at pp, 4.15-26 - 4.15-31. Those findings by CVWD are hereby incorporated by this reference. Conditions in the Indio Subbasin are continually being assessed and quantified in management plans developed and implemented by CVWD. In December 2021, CVWD approved the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, which provides the most current assessment of the subbasin and other water supplies, including consideration of the potential for extended extreme drought conditions. The Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update analyzes several scenarios over the 50 -year period required by SGMA to address potential future water supply conditions, changes in land use, and implementation of water management projects including source substitution and new water supply projects. Climate change conditions were considered in all of these scenarios. To account for the potential effects of future climate change, the projections assume CVWD will contribute water to California's Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan allotment for Colorado River water. Under this plan, CVWD is obligated to contribute approximately 14,000 to 24500 AFY, which equals about 7 percent of California's total contribution, to prevent Lake Mead water levels reaching critically low levels (see Final EIR, at pp. 2-23 - 2-25). ill The modeling of these scenarios shows that implementation of water management projects that are already planned and CVWD's ongoing management actions can maintain the water balance in the Indio Subbasin, even with the expected effects of future climate change in the Colorado River Basin and on the State Water Project (see Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, pp. ES -9 - ES -12, p. 7-89, and Figures ES -6 and ES -8). Accordingly, this information supports the conclusions in the DEIR that (i) the project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the Indio Subbasin; and (ii) CVWD will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and therefore, will not have any significant adverse effects relating to water use. Based on both the project -specific WSA/WSV and the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, the City Council finds that CVWD has correctly calculated for, and demonstrated that it can supply the water demand generated by the proposed project, as well as all other existing and projected future demands. In addition, the City Council has reviewed and considered the public comments questioning the accuracy of the water demand calculations in the WSA/WSV, including the alternative water demand and evaporation figures cited in Comment 65-d in the Final EIR. The City Council finds these alternative evaporation figures and calculations to lack sufficient verified information regarding the project site and the proposed wave basin to constitute substantial evidence regarding the project's water demands or the sufficiency of available water supplies. On the other hand, the City Council finds the information in the WSA/WSV, the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update approved by CVWD, and the Topical Response on Water Resources in the Final EIR (pp. 2-17 - 2-28), to be valid and persuasive substantial evidence that the project will not have any significant adverse effects on groundwater supplies or CVWD's recharge activities and other groundwater basin management efforts. To the extent still applicable after elimination of the wave basin from the Revised Project, the City Council also adopts Final EIR Responses 52-o, 65-d, 83-1, and 83-m and incorporates those responses as part of its findings, analysis and conclusions that there are adequate available water supplies to serve the project and all other existing and planned future uses, and that the project will have less than significant effects on groundwater supplies and CVWD's recharge and other groundwater management efforts. 112 The City Council has also reviewed and considered the letter and accompanying memo submitted by Bruce Bauer on February 7, 2022, and the letter dated April 12, 2022, asserting errors and inadequacies in the WSA/WSV. To the extent still applicable after elimination of the wave basin from the Revised Project, the City Council finds that, contrary to the assertion in the Bauer letters, both the WSA/WSV and the Draft EIR provide complete and accurate information regarding the evaporation and water demand calculations for the project in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA, including the specific water demands of the proposed wave basin. The City Council further finds that the analysis of water evaporation and water use at the proposed DSRT SURF project located in Palm Desert is inapplicable to the Revised Project because that location has different evaporation rates, and the wave basin has now been eliminated from the Revised Project. With regard to evaporation, CVWD defines evaporation (ETo) rates for each of four different climate zones in its service area which reflect several important factors including local elevation, wind, and shadow conditions, in addition to temperatures (see Appendix C to Landscape Ordinance 1302.4). Accordingly, the City Council finds the water demand analysis used for the DSRT SURF project to be inapplicable here, and finds the arguments and information in the Bauer letter lack substantial evidence. The City Council has also reviewed and considered all comments received prior to and during the public hearings on this project, concerning the ongoing drought conditions and the adequacy of water supplies to serve the project and all other existing and planned future development. The City Council is well aware of the ongoing drought conditions and has evaluated whether the WSA/WSV approved by CVWD remains adequate and valid in light of the existing and anticipated future condition of the Colorado River and other imported water supplies. The City Council accepts and relies upon the expertise of CVWD in its position as the regional water provider and manager of the basin, as well as expert evidence supplied by Mr. Tom Levy, retired General Manager and Chief Engineer of CVWD, regarding the accuracy of the WSA/WSV and the adequacy of the long-term supply of water from the Colorado River. See Exhibits H and I to the James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022. Based on this evidence, as well as the public expert reports regarding the Indio Subbasin groundwater management efforts, which were submitted by the applicant on April 23, 2022 and included in the record of proceedings for this project, the City Council finds and concludes that the WSA/WSV is valid and accurate. The City Council further concludes that there will be adequate water supplies for the project and all other existing and planned future development in the Coachella Valley, due to the water shortage contingency plans and other ongoing groundwater management efforts of CVWD and the other Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, 113 even in light of the potential future reductions in the availability of Colorado River water during drought conditions. Wastewater Treatment System Capacity The Revised Project will not have any significant project -specific or cumulative adverse effects concerning CVWD's wastewater treatment system capacity because CVWD's existing Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) has adequate capacity to serve the project (which will add approximately 3.3 percent to the existing flows to WRP-4), and because the project will connect to CVWD's existing sewer mains adjacent to the project site, which have adequate capacity to convey the additional flows from the project (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-17 - 4.15-18, and 4.15-32). Generate Excess Solid Waste As described on pages 4.15-32 and 4.15-33 of the Draft EIR, the project is projected to generate 581.6 tons of solid waste per year, which equals 3,574.5 cubic yards of solid waste per year. Solid waste from the City of La Quinta is transported to the Edom Hill Transfer Station, and then sent to the Lamb Canyon Landfill (8.7 million tons of remaining capacity) or the Badlands Landfill (5.1 million tons of remaining capacity) (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-4 and 4.15-5). In addition, all future development would be required to comply with mandatory commercial and residential recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines; and the project will be served by landfills (EI Sobrante and Lamb Canyon) with sufficient capacity to serve the project (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-32 - 4.15-33). Therefore, impacts relative to solid waste are less than significant. Comply with Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste. The Revised Project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines. All development is required to comply with the mandatory commercial and residential recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. The California Green Building Standards Code (Cal Green) applies to all cities in California, and mandates that all new building construction develop a waste management plan that includes diversion of at least 65% of construction and demolition material from landfills, through recycling and/or reuse. Prior to applying for a permit, the contractor or property owner must submit a Construction & Demolition Debris Management Plan to the City's Environmental Coordinator. There will be no significant adverse effects 114 relating to applicable solid waste regulations because the project is required to and will comply with all such regulations (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-33). V. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS HAVING NO IMPACT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Federally protected wetlands. The site does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, federally protected wetlands, marshes or other drainage features. No blue -line stream corridors (streams or dry washes) are shown on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps for the project site nor are there botanical indicators of such corridors. As a result, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in the direct removal, filling or other hydrological interruption to federally protected wetlands. Therefore, the project will have no impacts on federally protected wetlands (Draft EIR, at p. 4.3-17). GEOLOGY AND SOILS Effects Involving Rupture of a Known Fault. There are no known active faults near or at the project site, and the project is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, there will be no impact associated with fault rupture on-site (Draft EIR p. 4.6- 15). HAZARDS AND HAZADOUS MATERIALS Hazardous Materials within 1/4 mile of a school. The project site is not located within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school. The closest school to the project site is Westside Elementary School, located approximately 1.30 miles northeast of the project. Offsite improvements include the construction and operation of a transformer bank at an existing IID substation located at 81600 Avenue 58. The substation is located approximately one mile southwest of Westside Elementary School. Therefore, the project's proposed onsite and offsite improvements will have no impact on schools as it relates to hazardous materials. 115 Sites with Known Hazardous Materials Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Government Code section 65962.5 requires that a list of the location of hazardous materials release site be maintained and updated least annually. The GeoTracker and ECHO databases listed sites within one mile of the project. The GeoTracker database listed one registered Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Site within a one -mile radius of the project site. The potential contaminant of concern at this site was identified as gasoline; however, the site has a status of "Completed -Case Closed" as of October 1999. Therefore, the facility will not affect the project or result in any hazard to the public (Draft EIR, at p. 4.8-20). The ECHO database highlighted one facility registered under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as a minor general permit covered facility, which is located approximately 0.75 miles from the project site. The facility has remained in compliance for three consecutive years with no identified violations, and due to its distance from the proposed project, the registered site is not anticipated to affect the project site (Draft EIR, at p. 4.8-20 - 4.8-21). Therefore, hazardous waste sites will have no impact on the proposed project. Effects Having No Impact and Not Analyzed Further in Draft EIR In addition to the foregoing potential environmental effects, for which the City Council finds that the following impacts associated with the project will have no impacts and do not require mitigation, the City Council further finds that the following impacts associated with the project will have no impacts, do not require mitigation, and did not need to be analyzed in further detail within the Final EIR: Agriculture and Forest Resources, Geology and Soils (with respect to septic tanks/alternative wastewater disposal systems only), Hazards and Hazardous Materials (safety hazards for projects located within an airport land use plan only), Land Use and Planning (physically divide an established community only), Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Noise (exposure to airport noise), Recreation, and Wildfire. The Final EIR summarizes these impacts that were found to be insignificant in Chapter 6, and the City Council hereby adopts the findings, analysis and conclusions set forth therein. 116 VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE DEIR AND REJECTED The State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a) requires the discussion of a "a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The Guidelines states that the "range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects" (Section 15126(c)). The Final EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. These alternatives are: Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative Alternative 4: The Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative Alternative 5: The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative When a lead agency has determined that a proposed project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, prior to approving the project as mitigated, the agency must determine whether there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior with respect to such impacts and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. An alternative may be rejected if it is "infeasible" or if it fails to achieve most of the basic project objectives identified within the EIR. "Feasibility" under CEQA encompasses the desirability of the project based on a reasonable balancing of relevant economic, environmental, social, or other considerations which make infeasible the project alternatives. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e) requires the analysis of alternatives to include the specific alternative of "No Project." The purpose of describing and analyzing a No Project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. Under the No Project/No Build Alternative ("Alternative 1"), the project would remain in its current and existing vacant condition. The existing visual character and visual resources would remain the same, and none of the significant impacts of the project would occur. 117 Finding and Facts in Support of Finding Although the No Project/No Build Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative in that it would avoid the significant adverse effects of the Revised Project; the City Council of the City of La Quinta rejects the No Project/No Build Alternative for the following reasons: 1. The No Project/No Build Alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan, insofar as this alternative would not implement the General Plan's land uses for the property, which the City Council considers inconsistent with its vision for City land use policy under the General Plan. 2. The No Project/No Build Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives. 3. In particular, the Revised Project will create a private residential and golf course community with a variety of interrelated and mutually supportive commercial and recreational land uses that will generate transient occupancy and sales tax revenues in order to enhance the City's economic base and long-term financial stability, which are significant public benefits that will not be realized under the No Project/No Build Alternative. 4. This alternative could result in the loss of the adobe structure and would leave the pre -historic Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex resources at the base of Coral Mountain unprotected, which could result in a significant impact to historic and pre -historic resources. 5. The project site remaining in its existing condition is not considered the most likely outcome if the proposed project is not approved, due to the existing entitlements associated with SP 03-067, which would remain in effect if the project is disapproved. The City Council therefore finds that the No Project/No Build Alternative is unacceptable and rejects it. Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative The project would be reduced by one-third of the proposed density of the project under this Alternative. Therefore, this Reduced Density Alternative would develop 400 residential dwelling units, 100 resort/hotel rooms, 38,000 118 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. Finding and Facts in Support of Finding The City Council of the City of La Quinta rejects the Reduced Density Alternative for the following reasons: 1. The Reduced Density Alternative does not meet all of the project objectives, including maintaining the overall density previously included for this property in the Andalusia Specific Plan to ensure compliance with applicable California law, including under SB 330. 2. This Alternative retains the previously proposed wave basin and a hotel, which the City Council has determined to be incompatible with its vision for the project site, inconsistent with the best interests of the City's residents, and unacceptable on these policy grounds. 3. This Alternative would not reduce the project's significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact on views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains, which would still result from construction of the perimeter walls, landscaping, and single-family homes (Draft EIR, at pp. 7-30 - 7-32). The City Council therefore finds the Reduced Density Alternative unacceptable and rejects it. Alternative 4: The Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative This Alternative would develop 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, but would not include the Wave Basin and related uses. Finding and Facts in Support of Finding The City Council of the City of La Quinta rejects the Golf/Resort Hote Alternative for the following reasons: 1. This Alternative retains the previously proposed hotel use, which the City Council has determined to be incompatible with its vision for the 119 project site, inconsistent with the best interests of the City's residents, and unacceptable on these policy grounds. 2. This alternative would also fail to substantially reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Revised Project as it proposed the same golf course uses and adds 150 hotel rooms and associated resort uses in place of 150 homes allowed under the existing entitlements. Accordingly, this alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. The City Council therefore finds the Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative unacceptable and rejects it. Alternative 5: The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative This Alternative would develop 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. Finding and Facts in Support of Finding The City Council of the City of La Quinta rejects the Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative for the following reasons: 1. This alternative would fail to substantially reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Revised Project as it proposes the same number of low-density residential units. Replacing the golf course uses proposed under the Revised Project (and allowed under the existing entitlements) with a 75 -acre recreational lake will not substantially reduce or avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Revised Project. Accordingly, this alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. 2. The 75 -acre recreational lake proposed under this Alternative is deemed by the City Council to be inconsistent with the City's desire to allocate water resources wisely, particularly given the project site's 120 proximity to existing Lake Cahuilla. On this basis, the City Council finds this Alternative to be inconsistent with the best interests of the City's residents and incompatible with the City's existing General Plan policies The City Council therefore finds the Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative unacceptable and it is rejected. Additional Findings Regarding the Environmentally Superior Alternative A summary comparison of impacts associated with the project Alternatives is provided in the Draft EIR in Table 7-6, Comparison of Alternatives to Project, and is updated by Table 25 on page 72 of the CEQA Compliance Memo. Of the Alternatives considered in this Draft EIR section, the No Project/No Build Alternative is environmentally superior to the other Alternatives because this Alternative would avoid any impacts identified for the project or any other alternative. Although Alternative 1 is environmentally superior, it does not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project because it would not involve any development of the site. The CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative to the project and 'cif the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[e][2]. In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives. Of the remaining alternatives, Alternative 3 (reduced density project) would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would result in incremental reductions with respect to the following environmental topics: air quality, energy, noise, public services, transportation, and utility & services. This Alternative would also avoid the project's significant and unavoidable impact regarding GHG emissions, Air Quality, and VMT. However, Alternative 3 would fail to adequately meet the proposed project's basic objective of maintaining the overall density count previously included in the Andalusia Specific Plan, which the City Council finds to be inconsistent with the General Plan and unacceptable for that reason. This Alternative also would fail to generate the same levels of transient occupancy and sales taxes to enhance the City's economic base and long-term financial stability. While Alternative 3 121 is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative, the City Council rejects it as infeasible because it is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and considered economically infeasible due to the reduced TOT and sales tax revenue that the City Council considers critical for this property because until 2035, 100% of all real property taxes from the project site must be used to retire a long-term debt from the County's former Thermal Redevelopment Project Area. As a result, Alternative 3 is rejected. 122 VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE 2 SELECTED AS PREFERRABLE TO THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED PROJECT Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements Under this alternative, the 386 -acre portion of the project would be developed under the existing Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan (03-067). The Revised Project is consistent with and implements this Alternative by developing approximately 8.4 acres of General Commercial, along with 750 low density residential units and a golf course. The neighborhood commercial uses would be typical of those found in other neighborhood commercial centers in the City, providing a range of retail uses. As presently allowed under the existing entitlements for the project site, STVRs would be permitted and are anticipated to generate substantial TOT revenue to the City that will help offset the public safety costs that will be generated by the Revised Project. Finding and Facts in Support of Finding The City Council of the City of La Quinta approves the Revised Project as consistent with the No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative, and rejects the Previously Proposed Project for the following reasons: 1. The City Council finds that the previously proposed wave basin, hotel, and related Tourist Commercial uses are incompatible with its vision for the project site, inconsistent with the best interests of the City's residents, and unacceptable on these policy grounds. 2. The Revised Project would generate substantial transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues that would enhance the City's economic base and support the City's long-term financial stability, which is considered a significant public benefit of the proposed project, and would do so without introducing a hotel, wave basin, or other Tourist Commercial uses to the project site. 3. While the Revised Project would have increased adverse environmental effects in the areas of Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Vehicle Miles Traveled, as described on pages 7-17, 7-20 - 7-21, and 7-26 of the Draft EIR and in the CEQA Compliance Memo, due to a reduction of complementary land uses and connectivity, and would increase the project water demands due to inclusion of the golf course uses (see Draft EIR, page 7-27 and CEQA Compliance Memo at pp. 66 - 67 and Appendix D) because the Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and VMT would be significant and unavoidable impacts, 123 and would be somewhat greater than those anticipated with the previously proposed Previously Proposed Project. However, the Revised Project would reduce the Previously Proposed Project's aesthetic impacts due to the elimination of the wave basin and associated lighting. Impacts concerning electricity use, land use and planning, and noise would also be incrementally reduced with the Revised Project. Overall, the City Council finds that the Revised Project will have the same environmental effects as Alternative 2 in the Draft EIR and that these environmental effects cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially reduced under the Previously Proposed Project because the wave basin and other tourist commercial uses are deemed to be unacceptable for the project site and thus infeasible on policy grounds. The City Council further funds that the Revised Project and Alternative 2 will not have any new or significantly more severe environmental effects than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR. VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, CEQA requires the decision- making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." As described in Section III of these Findings, the Revised Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts in the following areas: (1)the Revised Project's perimeter walls, landscaping and low-density residential homes will obstruct existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains from public views and surrounding properties; (2) under the updated CalEEMod (2022) modeling, the Revised Project will generate certain priority air quality pollutants (VOC and NOx) that exceed the updated 2023 SCAQMD significance thresholds; (3)the Revised Project will generate GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's established threshold of significance, and even with 124 implementation of the recommended mitigation measure requiring the purchase of carbon credits, this effect is considered significant and unavoidable because the use of carbon credits has not been established in the Coachella Valley area as effective mitigation for residential and resort communities, and because even with the purchase of such credits, the project will still generate GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold; and (4)the Revised Project will generate VMT that exceed the City's per resident standard and the City's non-residential VMT standard. As permitted under CEQA Guideline 15093(b) the City Council of the City of La Quinta adopts and makes this statement of overriding considerations concerning these unavoidable significant impacts to explain why the Revised Project's specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, outweigh its unavoidable impacts. In general, the project site provides an appropriate location for the proposed residential, golf course and commercial uses that will provide employment, housing, recreation, and increased property and sales tax revenue opportunities for the City, its residents and visitors. The City Council of the City of La Quinta finds that the Revised Project's significant environmental impacts are acceptable when balanced with the project's benefits. Each of the benefits cited below constitutes a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the project and outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of approving the Revised Project, and thus make the adverse environmental effects acceptable. Thus, even in the absence of one or more of the reasons set forth below, the City has determined that each remaining reason, or any combination of reasons, is a sufficient basis for approving the project, notwithstanding any significant and unavoidable impacts that may occur. 1. The project will generate substantial transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue for the City from the allowed STVR uses, which the City Council considers a critical component of the project because this site is part of the former Thermal Redevelopment Project Area, and as a result, 100% of all real property taxes from the project site must be used by the County to retire a long-term debt for bonds previously issued by Riverside County. Without the TOT revenue, development of the project would generate substantial City general fund costs with no source of revenue to cover those additional costs. 125 2. The project provides a unique opportunity to allow TOT revenue - generating short-term vacation rentals (STVRs), at the homeowners' option, within a master planned, mixed-use community that is designed to successfully accommodate such STVRs with complementary neighborhood commercial and recreational amenities onsite and centralized management of the STVRs. The project will also include CC&Rs, rules and regulations, sales disclosures, and community enforcement mechanisms designed to accommodate STVRs and avoid any adverse effects on project residents and the surrounding communities. This approach allows the City and project homeowners to receive the benefits of STVRs, while also allowing potential future residents to choose whether or not to live in a private, gated community that allows STVRs. 3. The project provides a complementary mix of interrelated and mutually supportive residential, neighborhood commercial and recreational uses that create a private resort -like community which minimizes GHG emissions and vehicle miles traveled associated with the proposed uses through promoting walkability and non -motorized connectivity as an integral part of the project design, including establishing residential neighborhoods that are linked through multi- use trails that connect neighborhoods and planning areas throughout the project. 4. The project provides neighborhood commercial uses at the corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 to serve existing and future residents in this portion of the City, which currently lacks any neighborhood serving commercial uses, thus requiring lengthy trips by residents to meet their most basic commercial needs. 5. The project maintains the overall density of planned development for the site, adding to the diversity of housing and recreational amenities within the City, while also maintaining low-density residential uses around the majority of the project perimeter that matches the surrounding residential communities. 6. The project will contribute to both temporary and permanent employment and economic growth opportunities in this portion of the City, which provides a significant public benefit to the City and its residents. 7. The project will generate significant funding for public infrastructure improvements within the City and surrounding area, including improvements to the local and regional circulation system through 126 the payment of TUMF and DIF fees, and fair share contributions to multiple signalization projects required as part of General Plan build out. 8. The project will benefit the unique biological resources in the City and broader Coachella Valley region by contributing substantial funding through payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee to support CVCC's ongoing efforts to acquire and maintain essential habitat for special status species, and by constructing a sheep barrier along the base of Coral Mountain and the remaining western project boundary, which will contribute to CVCC's ongoing efforts to protect the Peninsular bighorn sheep from communities located on the valley floor. 9. The project will support and implement all eight of the guiding principles of the City's 2035 General Plan, including: (i) supporting "a fiscally sound community" that capitalizes on the City's unique development opportunities; (ii) supporting "a resort oriented community" that maintains and improves the residential and golf opportunities in La Quinta, consistent with its reputation as a top resort and recreational destination; (iii) supporting "a neighborhood -oriented community" that strives to ensure that existing and future housing for all residents continues to be diverse in type and of high quality; (iv) supporting "a healthy, vibrant and heritage minded community" that ensures that all land uses cohesively exist with the area's natural, cultural, and historical heritage, including by protecting the Coral Mountain Art Rock Complex at the base of Coral Mountain and the remnants of the adobe structure located on the project site, which are currently subject to potential vandalism and deterioration; (v) supporting "a conservation focused community" that promotes the efficient use of water and energy resources through implementing the previously approved golf course use on the site with current responsible water use design concepts, and incorporating integrated design principles and state-of-the-art efficiency features to ensure an environmentally sustainable development; 127 (vi) supporting "a safe community" through development standards that promote safe indoor and outdoor spaces in this gated community that will provide on-site private security and provide substantial funding for emergency services (both through payments of DIF and generation of TOT and sale tax revenue); (vii) supporting "a full service community" that provides and maintains adequate service levels and facilities for streets, water, sewer, storm drains and other infrastructure, which here include privately owned and maintained streets within the project as well as improvements to the City's arterial streets and funding for areawide circulation system upgrades, as well as constructing all required sewer, water, and storm drain infrastructure; and (viii) supporting "a circulation minded community" that promotes and encourages a broad range of transportation opportunities that reduce impacts on the environment by providing a complimentary mix of residential, commercial, and recreational uses that are interconnected through multi -modal roads, trails and paths that reduce the length of vehicle trips and promote non -motorized travel. 10. The project will provide an important public connection through the project site for the Coral Mountain park and recreational trail system planned for the area by the Desert Recreation District. In addition, the project will pay substantial City Development Impact Fees and Quimby fees that will provide funding sources intended to allow Desert Recreation District to accelerate the timing and completion of Coral Mountain Park and related trail system. The implementation of this measure is assured and enforceable because it is included in the Development Agreement and conditions of approval for the Specific Plan. Conclusion: In light of the foregoing, and the information contained within the Final EIR and other portions of the project record of proceedings, the City Council concludes that implementation of the Revised Project (consistent with Alternative 2 in the Draft EIR and existing Zoning and General Plan land use designations) will result in the development of a unique project that provides 128 substantial economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, as outlined above, which outweigh and make acceptable the significant, unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the Revised Project and, accordingly, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations. 129 IX. FINDINGS REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of La Quinta as the lead agency under CEQA is responsible for certification of the EIR and therefore makes the following findings: 1. The Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and its Guidelines; 2. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to making its decision on the Project; 3. The certification of the Final EIR and the findings set forth herein reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis in its capacity as lead agency; and 4. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment A) to reduce or avoid the significant and mitigable impacts of the Revised Project to the maximum extent feasible. The final version of the mitigation measures adopted by the City Council and set forth in these findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been revised as necessary from the versions set forth in the Draft EIR and Final EIR to account for the removal of the previously proposed and rejected wave basin, hotel and other tourist commercial uses. 5. The City Council finds that the Final EIR, including the CEQA Compliance Memo, properly evaluated the Revised Project's potentially significant cumulative impacts based on General Plan buildout, and that this analysis included all past, present and probable future projects in the project vicinity that could cause or contribute to such significant cumulative effects. 6. The City Council finds that the additional information and evidence submitted after release of the Draft EIR and prior to certification of the Final EIR, including responses to comments on the Draft EIR and the CEQA Compliance Memo, does not constitute "significant new information," as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, but rather, merely clarifies and amplifies the information provided in the Draft EIR. By these Findings, the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the Final EIR. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the mitigation measures specified therein, as well as the project design features 130 identified in the Draft EIR, are hereby approved and adopted, and shall be fully enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as permit conditions, agreements or other measures. Any finding made by the City shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by the City, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. The City intends that these findings be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any part of these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or committed to be made by the City with respect to any particular subject matter of the Final EIR, shall be deemed to be made if it appears in any portion of these findings. If any term, provision or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City. 131 Resolution No. 2024 -XXX Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 EXHIBIT B Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310 Project: Club at Coral Mountain FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Adopted: March 5, 2024 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Introduction If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project as part of the CEQA process, the lead agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure compliance with the project's mitigation measures. Section 15126(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a project's mitigation measures must be enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other mechanisms. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines further provide that the MMRP must be adopted at the time of project approval. However, while the MMRP does not have to be included in the EIR, for the sake of maximizing public transparency, a copy of the proposed project's MMRP has been included in this Final EIR below. In light of the foregoing, this Chapter contains the proposed project's MMRP. The MMRP was prepared to provide a program for not only monitoring and reporting on the project's mitigation measures, but also enforcing compliance with respect to the implementation of each mitigation measure adopted for the project. The purpose of the mitigation measures is to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects of the project. Monitoring Authority The City may delegate duties and responsibilities for monitoring any given mitigation measure to designated environmental monitors or consultants as deemed necessary. The City may also delegate such duties and responsibilities to certain responsible agencies, affected jurisdictions, enforcement and regulatory agencies of the state or county, special districts and other agencies. The same duties and responsibilities may also be delegated to qualified private entities which accept the delegation. The City's Development Services (or equivalent positions of other designated agencies or entities) must ensure that the officials delegated the duties or responsibilities to monitor any given set of mitigation measures are qualified to assume such duties and responsibilities. Any deviation from the procedures identified under the MMRP shall require prior approval or authorization by the City. Moreover, any deviations from any of the established monitoring procedures set forth in the MMRP and any remedial actions taken to correct such deviations shall be reported immediately to the City by the assigned environmental monitor or consultant. Notwithstanding any such delegation, the City shall remain responsible for monitoring the implementation of all of the project's mitigation measures in accordance with the project's MMRP. 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Enforcement Responsibility The mitigation measures for the proposed project will primarily apply prior to or during construction of the project in all phases of development the project. The City shall be responsible for enforcing each mitigation measure, albeit the City may assign such enforcement responsibilities to a qualified environmental monitor. The assigned environmental monitor for each construction activity shall report any problems with enforcement to the City and appropriate agencies. The MMRP prepared for the proposed project will be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Mitigation Monitoring Table Table 1, Club at Coral Mountain Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, below identifies for each mitigation measure: (1) the potential impact on the environment that the mitigation measure is focused on; (2) a description of the mitigation measure; (3) who or which entity is responsible for monitoring the mitigation measure; (4) the timing for implementing the measure; and (5) the anticipated level of significant after mitigation. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 Club at Coral Mountain Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Potential Impacts Responsible for Level of on the Environment Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Significance After Mitigation Section 4.1, AES -1 The perimeter walls around the low density residential City Council/ Aesthetics planning areas shall be setback from the Madison Street Planning and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way by a minimum Commission During review a. Adverse effect average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the Significant and on scenic vistas LQMC), which shall be confirmed through the City's Public Works of Tentative Unavoidable c. Visual character review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape Department Tract Maps or scenic quality plans to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. Project Applicant City Council/ Planning AES -2 All residential structures shall be setback by a minimum Commission During review of 75 feet from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public of Tentative Significant and rights-of-way to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Public Works Unavoidable Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. Department Tract Maps Project Applicant Sectionon 4.2, Air QualityConstruction-Source Mitigation Measures AQ -1: During Phase 1 of construction, the paving installation a. Conflict with activity shall not overlap with the architectural coating implementation (building painting) activity. That prohibition shall be City Planning & of applicable air included on all building plans. Public Works During ground Significant and quality plan AQ -2: For equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), Department disturbing Unavoidable b. Result in a the Construction Contractor shall ensure that off-road activities & cumulatively diesel construction equipment that complies with Project construction considerable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Contractor net increase if Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards and any criteria shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM pollutant for specifications. which the project region is Operational -Source Mitigation Measures non -attainment AQ -3: The project will require the use of low VOC paints for re - under an painting and maintenance of exterior structures applicable consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 (not to exceed 50 federal or state grams per liter VOCs for interior and exterior building City Planning & ambient air envelope re -painting). Under federal and state law, Public Works quality standard SCAQMD is under a legal obligation to enforce air Department During Significant and c. Expose sensitive pollution regulations. These regulations are primarily Construction Unavoidable receptors to meant to ensure that the surrounding (or ambient) air Project substantial meets federal and state air quality standards. The South Contractor pollutant Coast AQMD also has broad authority to regulate toxic concentrations and hazardous air emissions, and these regulations are enforced in the same manner as those which pertain to the ambient air quality standards. Standard Regulatory Requirements/Best Available Control Measures The following standard regulatory requirements and best available control measures shall appear on all project grading plans, construction specifications and bid documents, and the City shall ensure that such language is incorporated prior to issuance of any development permits: City Planning & Public Works Prior to the BACM AQ -1: The contractor shall adhere to applicable measures Department Significant and contained in Table 1 of Rule 403 including, but not limited approvalof Unavoidable to: Project grading plan ns • All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation Contractor activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are limited to 15 miles per hour or less. BACM AQ -2: The following measures shall be incorporated into project plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 (3): • Only "Low -Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)" paints (no more than 50 gram/liter (g/L) of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used. BACM AQ -3: The project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development. Section 4.3, BI0-1: Burrowing owl surveys shall be performed by a qualified Biological biologist, approved by the City prior to any site Resources disturbance activities. A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed a. Candidate, in advance of any site disturbance activities. If sensitive disturbance activities are expected to start during the special staatt us burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys shall be Qualified species completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be Biologist d. Interfere with completed within three days prior to initiation of any site City Planning Prior to movement of disturbance activities. The pre -construction survey shall Department ground Less than native resident or be conducted following accepted protocol and the disturbance Significant migratory fish or requirements specified in the CVMSHCP (see pp. 4-168 & Project wildlife species or 4-169). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will Applicant/ with established survey the construction area and an area up to 500 feet Developer native resident or outside the project limits for burrows that could be used migratory wildlife by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be corridors 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 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 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. If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures, consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP. 113I0-2: 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 Qualified Bat take place during the bat maternity season (March 1S— Biologist August 31 in the Coachella Valley) to enable detection of maternity -roosting bats. If maternity roosts are identified City Planning Less than within the project area, the biologist will coordinate with Department June 2021 Significant CDFW to implement avoidance measures during the bat Project maternity season in accordance with CDFW's established Applicant/ standards. No construction activities will occur within a Developer 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. 13I0-3: Removal of trees (including palm trees) shall occur Qualified Bat Outside bat Less than MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM outside the bat maternity season (March 15—August 31 in Biologist maternity Significant the Coachella Valley), which coincides with the bird season nesting season, to avoid the potential for "take" of City Planning (March 15 — flightless young. Trees and snags that have been Department August 31) identified as confirmed or potential roost sites require a two-step removal process and the involvement of a bat Project biologist to ensure that no roosting bats are killed during Applicant/ this activity. Consistent with CDFW protocols this two- Developer 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. Qualified Bat 113I0-4: To avoid impacts to roosting bats from the installation of Biologist new light fixtures associated with the proposed City Planning Prior to the development, all lighting fixtures shall have light shields Department installation of Less than or similar devices (i.e., dark sky compliant lighting) Significant installed to ensure that there is no light trespass onto light poles Project Coral Mountain and surrounding open space. Applicant/ Developer 113I0-5: A qualified bat biologist shall confirm the absence of roosting bats prior to any restoration work or other Qualified Bat disturbance of the adobe site. If bats are found or if the Biologist absence of bats cannot be confirmed, the bat biologist 10 days prior will install or directly supervise installation of humane City Planning to the Less than eviction devices and exclusionary material to prevent bats Department demolition of Significant from roosting in the building. Implementation of the a structure humane eviction/exclusions is typically performed in the Project housing bats fall (September or October) preceding construction Applicant/ activity at each structure to avoid impacts to hibernating Developer bats during the winter months or during the maternity MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 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). 113I0-6: 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. 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 surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist that is pre -approved by the City. Prior to commencement of Qualified Bat 14 days prior clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct Biologist to clearing preconstruction surveys within 14 days and repeated 3 activities days prior to ground -disturbing activities. If any active City Planning Less than nests are detected a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for Department Outside the Significant raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be Project general bird delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is Applicant/ nesting complete. During construction activities, the qualified Developer season biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using his or her best professional judgment, or as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgment as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies to avoid Take of nesting birds. 113I0-7: To ensure that the project will avoid any significant City Manager During construction or operational noise impacts on wildlife construction Less than using Coral Mountain, noise monitoring will occur for all Project activities Significant construction activities using heavy equipment within 150 Developer within 150 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM feet of the base of Coral Mountain. If noise levels exceed feet of Coral 75 dBA, construction and/or operational changes or other Mountain project modifications shall be made, as directed by the project biologist to reduce the noise levels at Coral During Special Mountain to below 75 dBA. Events Once annually 13I0-8: Existing native vegetation, particularly palo verdeCity trees, Planning will be retained where feasible. Landscaping shall include Department During Less than native desert species. Landscaping Significant Project Applicant BIO -9: Onsite lakes will be designed and constructed by industry professionals and will incorporate proper aeration, circulation and filtration to maintain a balanced lake ecosystem. Lakes will be stocked with beneficial fish and Project Applicant During Less than plant species. Limited chemical applications will be operation Significant utilized as necessary. Ongoing maintenance will ensure that onsite lakes function properly to control any invasive species or other nuisance conditions. BIO -10: An education program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the commercial, open space, and low-density community through the use of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to support recovery of Peninsular bighorn City Planning sheep. The Education Program should include the ecology Department During Less than of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what threats this species is operation Significant currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce Project Applicant these threats. This includes information that explains: (1) why restrictions on toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.4 Cultural CUL -1: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared Resources by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and a. Adverse change measurements to preserve the information on the adobe to Historical building. Such information would include the floor plan, Resources elevations, building materials and their configurations, b. Adverse change and any other notable structural and architectural details. to The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined Archaeological by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered Resources off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. c. Disturb human Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area remains II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating Qualified that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the Archaeologist Prior to the project's Homeowners Association. Special attention City Planning & occupancy of Less than should be given to the residence foundation, which, may Engineering any structure Significant be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, in Planning dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this Department Area 11 location should be cleared and measured, and attempts Project Applicant should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre - 1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun -colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al. 1998:54). 10 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11 CUL -2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring Qualified plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and the Archaeologist Prior to City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity City Planning ground Less than for all construction phases and activities. If potentially disturbing Significant significant archaeological materials are discovered, all Department activities work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological ACBCI discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. City Planning CUL-3:An approved Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Department (ACBCI) Native American Cultural Resource Monitor shall Agua Caliente be present during any ground disturbing activities Band of Cahuilla During ground (including archaeological testing and surveys) for the Indians — Native disturbing Less than project. If potentially significant archaeological materials American activities Significant are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of Resource the archaeological discovery until the Tribal monitor can Monitor assess the significance of the find. Project Applicant Agua Caliente CUL -4: Prior to ground disturbance during any phase of the Tribal Historic Prior to project, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all Preservation ground Less than workers, conducted by the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Office disturbing Significant Preservation Office (THPO). activity Project Applicant CUL -5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contains the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, City Planning shall be avoided and protected in situ during project Department During ground construction through the establishment of disturbing and Less than Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Deed restrictions shall ABCBI construction Significant be recorded for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Project Applicant activity provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance of any portion of Planning Area III. For the balance of Site 33- 11 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ON 001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to ground disturbance to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI and their approval provided to the City in writing prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site. Section 4.6, Qualified Soils Geology and Soils Engineer GEO-1 All designs for any water body on the site shall be a. Expose people or prepared by a qualified engineer and comply with all City Planning, structures to seismic codes in effect at the time they are constructed. Engineering & Prior to site Less than potential All designs shall be based on and incorporate the Public Works plan approval Significant substantial recommendation of a qualified soils engineer in a site and Department adverse effects water body specific report attached to the plans involving: submitted to the City. Project iii. Seismic- Applicant/ related Developer ground GEO-2AI1 earthwork including excavation, backfill and Qualified Soils failure, preparation of the subgrade soil, shall be performed in Engineer including accordance with the geotechnical recommendations, liquefaction presented below, and portions of the local regulatory City Planning, c. Located on an requirements, as applicable. All earthwork should be Engineering & During ground Unstable performed under the observation and testing of a Public Works disturbing Less than Geologic Unit qualified soil engineer. The following geotechnical Department activities Significant d. Located on engineering recommendations for the proposed project Expansive Soil are based on observations from the field investigation Project f. Destroy a program, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering Applicant/ unique analyses. Developer ON MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM paleontological • Stripping: areas to be graded shall be cleared of the resource or site vegetation, associated root systems and debris. All or unique areas scheduled to receive fill should be cleared of old geologic feature fills and any irreducible matter. The stripping shall be removed off -sit or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas. Undocumented fill soil or loose soil shall be removed in its entirety and replaced as engineered fill. Voids left by obstruction shall be properly backfilled in accordance with the compaction recommendations of this report. • Preparation of the Residential Building Areas: in order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, the primary foundation bearing soil shall be over -excavated and recompacted. Over - excavation shall extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet blow the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. Once adequate removals have been verified, the exposed native soil shall be scarified, the moisture -conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. • Compaction: Soil to be used as engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris and other deleterious substances, and shall not contain irreducible matter greater than six (6) inches in maximum dimension. All fill materials shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding six inches in a loose condition. If import fill is required, the material shall be of a non -expansive nature and shall meet the following criteria: Plastic Index Less than 12 Liquid Limit Less than 35 Percent Soil Passing Between 15% and #200 Sieve 35% Maximum Aggregate 3 Inches Size 13 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The subgrade and all fill material shall be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The bottom of the exposed subgrade shall be observed by a representative of Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials. • Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill shall be anticipated. It is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted shall be between 1 and 3 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained. GEO-3 All earth -moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor and continuous monitoring will become necessary if undisturbed, potentially fossiliferous lakebed sediments are encountered. The monitor shall be City Planning, empowered to stop earth moving activities if fossils are Department During earth - identified. The monitor shall be prepared to quickly Qualified moving salvage fossils, but must have the power to temporarily operations halt or divert construction equipment to allow for paleontological reaching Less than removal of abundant or large specimens. A monitoring Monitor beyond the Significant plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of Project depth of two any earth moving permit, or the disturbance of any soils Applicant/ feet on the site, which will include: Developer • Samples of sediments shall be collected and processed to recover small fossil remains. • Recovered specimens shall be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 0161 that would allow for further research in the future. • A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance when appropriate, shall be prepared upon completion of the research procedures outlined above. The report shall be provided to the City within 30 days of the conclusion of monitoring activities. Section 4.7, GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Greenhouse Gas Applicant shall purchase a minimum of 72,000 MTCO2e Emissions credits (2,400 MTCO2e per year for 30 years). The purchase of carbon credits must be made from a CARB- a. GHG Emissions approved carbon registry with independent third -party that may verification. Examples of approved registries include the Significantly American Carbon Registry, Climate Action Reserve, and Impact the Verra. The applicant shall submit documentation of the City Planning Prior to the Environment offset purchase to the City demonstrating that it mitigates Department issuance Significant and a minimum of 2,400 MTCO2e per year (72,000 MTCO2e occupancyy Unavoidable over a 30 -year period), prior to any occupancy of the site. Project Applicant permits Alternatively, the Project Applicant may submit a GHG reduction plan to the City for approval that achieves an equal level of GHG reduction outlined herein. The GHG plan must include enforceable actions that reduce GHG emissions to at or below the total mitigated values presented herein. Section 4.11, Noise N0I-1 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of Prior to the building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that City Planning & approval of a. Generation of project construction activities shall comply with the City Public Works grading plans noise levels in of La Quinta Municipal Code requirements. Department and/or excess of N0I-2 During all project site construction, the construction issuance of Less than Significant established contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed Project building standards or mobile, with property operating and maintained Applicant/ permits b. Generation of mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The Developer excessive construction contractor shall place all stationary 0161 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM groundborne construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed vibration away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. N0I-3 The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise - sensitive receivers nearest the project site during all project construction (i.e., to the center). N0I-4 The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck -related noise. N0I-5 A six-foot perimeter wall will be developed along the northern and eastern property boundaries, adjacent to the proposed Low Density Residential Planning Area, in order to protect the proposed onsite residential uses City Planning & from off-site traffic noise. The barriers shall provide a Public Works weight of at least four pounds per square foot of face area Department During Less than with no decorative cutouts or line -of -sight openings construction Significant between shielded areas and the roadways. The barrier Project must present a solid face from top to bottom. Applicant Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be Developers made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. Section 4.13, TRA -1 The project proponent shall contribute DIF as required Transportation by the City of La Quinta. City Public Works Prior to the Department issuance of Less than a. Conflict with an TRA -2 The project proponent shall contribute TUMF traffic Building Significant applicable plan impact mitigation fees prior to the issuance of Building Project Applicant Permits. Permits. a policy addressing the TRA -3 The project proponent shall ensure that streetsca e p � p p p Prior to the circulation improvement plans for the project frontage on Avenue City Planning & initiation of 58, Madison Street and Avenue 60, are submitted to the Public Works landscape or Less than system City for review and approval prior to the initiation of Department p roadway Significant g landscape or roadway improvements. improvements 16 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM c. Increase Project Applicant hazards due to a geometric TRA -4 The project proponent shall ensure that clear City Planning & Prior to the design feature unobstructed sight distances are provided at all site Public Works approval of d. Result in access points and internal intersections. Sight distances Department landscape or Less than inadequate shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to roadway Significant emergency approval of landscape and street improvement plans. Project Applicant improvements access TRA -5 The project proponent shall ensure that final layout and City Traffic Prior to final site access design are subject to the review and approval Engineer ro ect p � Less than of the City Traffic Engineer prior to final project approval. approval Significant Project Applicant Fire Department TRA -6 The project proponent shall ensure that emergency City Planning & Prior to final Less than police, fire and paramedic vehicle access are provided Public Works project Significant for the project prior to final project approval. Department approval Project Applicant TRA -7 The project proponent shall ensure that traffic signing City Planning & During the and striping plans shall be developed in conjunction with Public Works project Less than street improvement plans and submitted to the City of Department approval Significant La Quinta for review and approval during the project approval process. Project Applicant process TRA -8 The project proponent shall ensure that Construction City Planning & Traffic Control Plans are reviewed and approved by the Public Works Prior to City prior to project construction. These plans are to be Department project Less than implemented during construction activities. construction Significant Construction includes onsite and offsite improvements. Project Applicant TRA -15 The project proponent shall ensure that the proposed City Planning Coral Mountain Interpretive Center trail designated by Department the Desert Recreation District Master Plan and associated Prior to Less than with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center is Desert project Significant incorporated into project plans. Accommodations for this Recreation approval trail shall be located along the approximate toe of Coral District Mountain, within the designated conservation area at the 0 V MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM southwestern edge of the property. Project Applicant Section 4.14, Tribal Qualified Cultural Resources Archaeologist TCR -1: Before ground disturbing activities begin, the applicant a. Cause shall contact the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office Agua Caliente substantial to arrange cultural monitoring. The project requires the Native American adverse change presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural in significance of Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground Resource Prior to tribal cultural disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and Monitor ground resource that is surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, disturbing Less than i. A site listed in the Monitor may request that destructive construction ACBCI Tribal Significant the CRHR or halt in the vicinity of the deposits, and the Monitor shall y p Historic activities Local Register, notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Preservation Tribal Cultural Interior's Standards and Guidelines), within 24 hours, to Office Resources investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for ii. A resource submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and City Planning determined to the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. Department be significant to a California Project Applicant Native TCR -2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be American required during all project related ground disturbing Qualified tribe. activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring Archaeologist plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and During all provided to the City prior to the initiation of any ground ACBCI ground Less than disturbing activity for all construction phases and City Planning disturbing Significant activities. If potentially significant archaeological Department activities materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the Project Applicant archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 0d'] TCR -3: Before ground disturbing activities, the project's archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI's Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action to approve the plan is taken within 30 days from submission for approval. If the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office rejects two Treatment, Qualified Disposition and Monitoring Plans submitted for approval, Archaeologist the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The ACBCI Tribal approved Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan Historic Prior to shall be provided to the City prior to any ground Preservation ground disturbance on the site. Office disturbing Less than Significant TCR -4: Before ground disturbing activities, the project's City Planning activities archaeologist shall prepare a Rock Art Management Plan, Department based on recommendations made in the report by McCarthy and Mouriquand, and shall submit the plan to City Council the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Rock Art Management Plan shall be deemed rejected Project Applicant by ACBCI's Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action is taken to approve the plan within 30 days of submission for approval. If the ACBCI Historic Preservation Office rejects two Rock Art Management Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Rock Art Management Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site. TCR -5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the Qualified During project base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which Archaeologistconstruction Less than contain the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, & Prior to City Planning Significant shall be avoided and protected in situ during project ground construction through the establishment of Department disturbance in 0d'] MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 20 Environmentally Sensitive Areas; the Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be recorded on the property, and proof of recordation shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III. Nominations of these sites to the National Register of Historic Places shall be filed with the appropriate federal agency prior to the issuance of the first grading permit; and the sites shall be subject to the provisions of the Rock Art Management Plan. Project Applicant Planning Area III TCR -6: For the portion of Site 33-001715 outside the preservation area established in TCR -5, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, Qualified shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both Archaeologist efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of Prior to cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved ACBCI ground Less than by ACBCI. A report of findings, including written disturbance in Significant confirmation of completion to ACBCI's satisfaction, shall City Planning Planning Area be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. Department III TCR -7: Prior to ground disturbance in Planning Area III, a Project Applicant qualified archaeologist shall complete surface collection, testing and excavation if necessary, for sites 33-1716, 33- 1717, 33-8386, 33-9001, 33-9003, 33-28907, 33-28908, 33-28909, 33-28910, 33-28911, 33-28912. A report of findings including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI's satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. TCR -8: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared Qualified Prior to the Less than by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The Archaeologist occupancy of Significant 20 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 21 program shall contain detailed drawings and City Planning any structure measurements to preserve the information on the adobe Department in Planning building. Such information would include the floor plan, Area II elevations, building materials and their configurations, Project Applicant and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project's Homeowners Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre - 1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun -colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al. 1998:54). TCR -9: The applicant shall coordinate with ACBCI Tribal Historic ACBCI THPO Prior to each Less than Preservation Office to ensure there are a sufficient phase of Significant 21 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM P% number of Native American monitors for the number of City Planning ground earth -moving machinery for each phase of development. Department disturbing The applicant shall provide the City with fully executed activity monitoring agreements prior to each phase of ground Project Applicant disturbing activity. TCR -10: Should human remains be inadvertently discovered during ground disturbance, the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 shall be followed. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any County Coroner location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the City Planning During ground Less than remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to Department disturbing Significant overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has activities examined the remains. If the coroner determines the Project Applicant remains to be Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 -hours. ACBCITHPO TCR -11: Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall sign Prior to a curation agreement with the ACBCI THPO. A fully City Planning ground Less than executed copy of the agreement shall be provided to the Department disturbing Significant City. activities Project Applicant ACBCITHPO TCR -12: Prior to any ground disturbance, cultural sensitivity Prior to training shall take place for all contractors with the staff City Planning ground Less than at the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office Department disturbing Significant (TH PO). activities Project Applicant P% Resolution No. 2024 -XXX Environmental Assessment No. 2019-0010 Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020210 Project: Club at Coral Mountain Adopted: March 5, 2024 EXHIBIT C DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Coral Mountain Resort, La Quinta CA CEQA Compliance Memo Club at Coral Mountain — CEQA Compliance Memo for DEIR Alternative 2 1.0 Introduction The Coral Mountain Resort project, processed by the City in 2021 and 2022, proposed the development of a boutique resort and master -planned community on 386 acres, consisting of 600 dwelling units, a surf basin facility on 16.62 acres, 150 hotel rooms and 57,000 square feet of private resort -serving commercial uses, up to 60,000 square feet of retail commercial uses available to the general public, and open space recreational uses at the southwest corner of the project property. To allow these uses, the project proposed an amendment to the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03-067 to remove the 386 -acre site from the existing Specific Plan; a new specific plan (Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan) to establish a new master plan and development standards for the master planned community; a General Plan Amendment to amend the Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Open Space Recreation land use designations to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, and Open Space Recreation; and a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Golf Course to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Parks and Recreation, and Tourist Commercial. Additional entitlements included a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Permit, and Development Agreement (see pages 3-9 through 3-12 of the DEIR for the project description). A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared concurrently to analyze the project under CEQA. The project as proposed at that time, and as analyzed in the DEIR is referred to as the "Preferred Alternative" within this CEQA Compliance Memo. The DEIR also analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the Preferred Alternative, including Alternative 2, the No Project/Existing Entitlement Alternative, which analyzed development of the same project site according to the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations and approved Andalusia Specific Plan (SP 03-067). Alternative 2 would develop the project site with up to 750 single family residential homes, a golf course, and an 8.4 -acre commercial center. Table 1-1 shows the existing land use and zoning summary of the project site as analyzed under Alternative 2. Table 1 Existing Land Use and Zoning Summary Existing Land Use Existing Zoning Acres Square Feet Max. Units General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial (CN) 8.4 60,000 -- Low Density Residential Low Density Residential (RL) 204.2 -- 750 Open Space (Recreation) Golf Course (GC) 171.9 -- -- Total 384.5 60,000 750 Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 1 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO On September 21, 2022 the La Quinta City Council denied the project, and determined that the project was statutorily exempt from CEQA because the project was disapproved, consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5). As a result, the DEIR was not certified by the City Council. Following the City Council hearing, the project applicant redesigned the proposed project to align with the existing entitlements for the site, including the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03- 067 and the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations, as analyzed in Alternative 2 in the DEIR. The Club at Coral Mountain project addressed in this CEQA Compliance Memo (referred to as "Revised Project" herein) proposes a commercial corner on 7.7 acres allowing up to 60,000 square feet of retail, an 18 -hole golf course on 187.5 acres, and up to 750 residential units on 191.8 acres. The Revised Project is consistent with the existing Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Open Space (Recreation) land use designations that currently exist on the project site. See Section 1.1, below for a full description of the Revised Project. While the Revised Project requires technical amendments to the General Plan land use map and zoning map to modify the layout of the golf course and low density residential acreages, the Revised Project contains the same allowed uses on the same property as Alternative 2 and the existing General Plan land use and zoning map with substantially the same permitted development. Please see Exhibit 1 for the existing and proposal distribution of land use and zoning designations. This Memo identifies and describes the Revised Project and analyzes how it compares to Alternative 2 in the DEIR, and also compares the Revised Project with the previously proposed Preferred Alternative studied in the DEIR. This Memo augments the analysis and comparison of the original Coral Mountain project and the alternatives analysis provided in Chapter 7.0, Alternatives, of the DEIR. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 2 January 2024 Exhibit 1 General Plan Map Amendment J L i -Lill LLIJ-ti- : Es� - - OS -N 0 cn LDR j lik Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 3 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO F�XLSIING GENERAL PLAN LANs] USE OS -R OPEN SPACE RECREATION CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE OS -R OPEN SPACE RECREATION CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NOTE. THIS GENERAL PLAIN MAP AMEINOMENT WILL ONLY REFINE EXISTING LAND USE BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE WEST TRACT OF SPECIFIC PLAN 03-067. ALL EXISTING GENERAL PLAIN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE WEST TRACT WILL REAU;N LINALTEREi- January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO The Revised Project — Club at Coral Mountain The Revised Project proposes the same low-density residential, golf, and neighborhood commercial uses allowed under the existing entitlements for the site and analyzed as Alternative 2 in the DEIR (SCH #2021020310). General Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments are proposed to make minor modifications to acreages and distribution of land uses, which are contained in the Specific Plan Amendment. The Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) is proposed to adjust the location and layout of open space—recreation and low-density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of existing land use designations. The Revised Project consists of a commercial corner on 7.7 acres allowing 60,000 square feet of retail, an 18 -hole golf course on 187.5 acres, and up to 750 residential units on 191.8 acres. The tables below indicate a more detailed breakdown of the land use summary and the zoning of the Revised Project. Table 2 Revised Project Land Use and Zoning Summary Land Use Zoning Acres Square Feet Dwelling Units General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial (CN) 7.7 60,000 -- Low Density Residential Low Density Residential (RL) 191.8 46,100 750 Open Space (Recreation) Golf Course (GC) 187.5 -- -- Total 387.0* 106,100 750 *Gross acreage per WSA. Net acreage 384.5 acres. As shown when comparing Tables 1 and 2, above, General Commercial lands would be reduced by 8.5%, Low Density Residential lands would be reduced by 6.1%, and Open Space lands would be increased by 9.1%. Given the limited changes in acreage, and the overall maintenance of the land uses allowed in Planning Areas (PA) III, V and VI, the Revised Project is substantially the same as Alternative 2 analyzed in the EIR, with minor refinements to the layout of golf and residential uses on the same project site as identified in the proposed SPA. The SPA proposes minor changes to the development standards and permitted uses on the west side of Madison Street, and would result in a mix of land uses as shown in Table 3. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 4 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 3 Revised Project Land Use Summary Planning Area Land Use Land Area (Acres) Square Feet Dwelling Units Single Family' 167.90 -- 730 Sports Club 5.90 24,500 10 Golf Club 4.00 8,600 10 PA III Golf Maintenance 2.00 10,000 -- Restaurants5 0.0 3,000 -- Recreational Lake 12.0 -- PA V Neighborhood Commerciale 7.70 60,000 -- Golf Course Area 181.9 -- PA VI Golf Course Lake 3.0 -- -- Public Right of Way 2.60 -- -- Total 387.04 1061100 750 1. Includes residential homes, entries, streets/circ, amenity areas, landscaped common areas, community OS, Golf Club and Sports Club, each with attached/stacked flats or townhome product and golf course maintenance facility. 2. Commercial/Retail 3. Includes Golf Course and ancillary uses. 4. Gross acreage per WSA 387. Net acreage 864.4 5. Restaurants in PA III are only allowed as part of the clubhouse. The SPA also proposes changes to the Design Guidelines section of the document, to accommodate a more contemporary architectural style. Analysis The following analysis has been prepared to provide a comparative evaluation of the environmental effects of the Revised Project with both Alternative 2 (the No Project/Existing Entitlement Alternative) and the Preferred Alternative (the previously proposed Coral Mountain Resort project) in the DEIR. This analysis utilizes the technical analysis provided in the DEIR regarding air quality, energy resources, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and water consumption as well as updates related to specific modelling including Air Quality, Transportation, Water and Sewer to current standards. For example, at the time the DEIR was written, the 10th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, and CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.2 were the resources utilized to analyze transportation and air quality related impacts, respectively. Since the publication of the DEIR in 2021, ITE trip generation rates and CaIEEMod were updated. ITE 11th Edition updated the trip generation rates, resulting in an increase in trips per land use, while the updates to the CalEEMod software from 2016 version to the 2022 version updated the internal algorithm to produce more accurate outputs regarding air quality, GHG emissions, and energy use. Each CEQA subject is addressed individually below. First, a summary of the analysis of the Preferred Alternative for that issue is provided, followed by a summary of the analysis of Alternative 2. Finally, Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 5 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO each section provides a comparison of the Revised Project to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 in terms of the level of impact and the need for mitigation, if required. Aesthetics Preferred Alternative The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to scenic quality and visual character, less than significant impacts to scenic resources and light and glare with the implementation of mitigation measures, and significant and unavoidable impacts to scenic vistas. To evaluate the Preferred Alternative's impact to scenic vistas, line of sight and visual simulations were generated for analysis in the DEIR. The residential developments associated with the Preferred Alternative would be visible (i.e., rooflines, landscaping) from public viewsheds. Although the rooflines and landscaping proposed for the Preferred Alternative would be similar to the existing residential developments in the surrounding area, the Preferred Alternative's development of these features would impact views of Coral Mountain and the base views of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Therefore, the DEIR established mitigation measures restricting building heights and increasing setbacks along the public rights-of-way (Mitigation Measures AES -1 and AES -2). However, the mitigation measures cannot reduce impacts to scenic vistas to less than significant levels, so impacts of the Preferred Alternative were determined to be significant and unavoidable. According to the DEIR, scenic resources at the project include Coral Mountain to the southwest and an adobe structure located onsite. The DEIR concluded that because the Preferred Alternative does not propose construction on or immediately adjacent to Coral Mountain, no impacts would occur. The adobe structure, although vandalized, burned, and deteriorated, is considered a historical resource. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 was established for the site. CUL -1 requires that a comprehensive recordation program be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for the site, requiring an appropriate buffer around the adobe and preservation in perpetuity of the adobe by the project homeowners association. This mitigation measure reduced potential impacts to less than significant levels. The DEIR provided an in-depth analysis of the Preferred Alternative's impact to the scenic quality and visual character of the area. The analysis concluded that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to the scenic quality and visual character because the project is surrounded by similar uses in the area, particularly the existing residential communities east and north of the project. Project design and building materials also contributed to the Preferred Alternative not significantly impacting the scenic quality and visual character in the area. The DEIR determined that outdoor lighting associated with landscaping, parking lots, residential, commercial, and resort buildings associated with the Preferred Alternative would comply with the lighting standards outlined in Section 9.100.150 and 9.150.080 of the La Quinta Municipal Code Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 6 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO (LQMC), and therefore, would result in less than significant impacts. The lighting analysis completed for the proposed 80 -foot light poles around the Wave Basin, determined that they would not impact onsite or offsite areas. Per Section 9.100.150 of the LQMC, the illumination of outdoor recreational facilities is exempt from outdoor lighting standards established in the LQMC, however, they are required to (1) meet shielding requirements and (2) not operate after 10 p.m. To assure that the operation of the Wave Basin would conclude at 10 p.m., the DEIR established Mitigation Measure AES -3, which would limit the operation of the Wave Basin to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. With implementation of this measure, impacts would be less than significant. The DEIR also concluded that the Preferred Alternative building materials would not result in glare, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes a low density residential and golf community consistent with the existing General Plan land uses, zoning and Specific Plan, which is also consistent with the uses in the surrounding area. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts to visual character due to Alternative 2's consistency with the surrounding context and existing Specific Plan (SP 03-067). Homes built under Alternative 2 would comply with the height limits established in the Specific Plan and in Section 9.50.020 of the LQMC. However, similar to the Preferred Alternative, development of Alternative 2 would obstruct views of Coral Mountain. Therefore, impacts associated with scenic vistas were found to be significant and avoidable, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AES -1 and AES -2. Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to the scenic resources that are Coral Mountain and the adobe structure, because the Alternative does not propose development on Coral Mountain, and the Alternative would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL -1 to avoid impacts to the adobe structure. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1, impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant. Alternative 2 would also result in less than significant impacts to light and glare since the Alternative would comply with the outdoor lighting standards established in the LQMC, and would not propose 80 -foot light poles. Thus, Mitigation Measure AES -3 was not applicable to Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not use building materials that would result in glare, similar to the Preferred Alternative. Revised Project The Revised Project's impacts to the surrounding scenic vistas and visual character would be consistent with those uses previously analyzed in the EIR for Alternative 2. Like Alternative 2, the Revised Project proposes low density residential homes along the northern and eastern boundaries. Adjustments to the golf course and residential land use configurations within the project site are proposed as a part of the Revised Project, but these refinements will not alter the appearance of the Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 7 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO project from the surrounding roadways. The Revised Project would follow the building development standards currently approved in the Specific Plan. Tables 4 and 5 below show the development standards proposed for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. The Revised Project does not propose changes to development standards, and therefore would comply with the development standards in the approved Specific Plan, and as a result are the same and shown in the same column in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 Development Standards Planning Area V — Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Preferred Alt. Max/Min Alt.2 & Revised Project Max/Min Max. Structure Height 35 ftl,2 35 ft.z Max. No. of Stories 2 2 Min. Front Setback 10 ft loft Min. Rear Setback 10 ft loft Min. Parking 1/250 ft GFA. 1/250 ft GLA Max. Building Floor Area in PA 1 60,000 SF 60,000 SF Min. Building Setback to Avenue 58 25 ft 25 ft Min. Building Setback to Madison Street 25 ft 25 ft Min. Setback from Interior Property Linea 0 ft 5/10 ft Min. Building/Landscape Setback from Residential PAI 40 ft/20 ft -- Max. Wall Height 6 ft loft Notes: 1. Height is limited to 22' within 150' of the Madison & Avenue 58 R.O.W. 2. Architectural and roof projections, such as chimneys, spires, finials and similar features not providing habitable or otherwise unusable space shall be permitted to extend up to fifteen feet above the maximum structure height. 3. Mechanical equipment to have a minimum 3 -foot setback from interior property lines. 4. Landscape setback occurs within the building setback. 6. The Specific Plan as previously adopted represents 25% FAR, but what is proposed is 60,000 square feet, which is less than the 25% FAR. 7. Five bicycle parking spaces for each tenant having over twenty thousand square feet of gross floor area. As indicated in the table above, the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project's development standards for structure height, number of stories, setbacks, and parking are the same. The building floor area, setback from interior property line, and wall height for the Preferred Alternative and the Revised Project vary slightly, but not enough to change the impact to scenic vistas. The building floor area proposed for the Preferred Alternative is approximately 22,000 square feet (or 0.5 acres) smaller than the building area for Alternative 2 and the Revised Project; the setback from interior property line varies by 5-10 feet; and wall height varies by 4 feet. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 8 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 5 Development Standards Planning Area III — Low Density Residential Notes: 1. Detached garages/carports, casitas, carriage house units 2. Height is limited to 22' within 150' of the Madison & Avenue 58 R.O.W. 3. Excluding chimneys, porticos other incidental architectural features etc. may exceed max. structure height by up to 5 feet. 4. AC units, trellis elements, pools, and spas are allowed to encroach into side and rear setback areas within 3' of property line. 5. 0' setback allowed for products, such as duplexes or zero lot line units, that share a common wall. 6. Subject to applicable building code requirements 7. -- = Not Applicable 8. Residence/Clubhouse As indicated in the table above, the development standards for structure height and number of stories are similar between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2/Revised Project. Front, side, and interior setbacks vary between 2 and 10 feet. Finally, maximum wall heights for the Revised Project are 2 to 4 feet higher than those allowed within the Preferred Alternative. However, these differences are subtle and will not change the impacts associated with scenic vistas or visual character. In addition to the commercial and residential land uses, the Preferred Alternative included development of a resort area, recreational open space, and a Wave Basin. Development standards Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 9 January 2024 Preferred Alt Alt 2 & Revised Project Detached/ Low Density Residential Detached Attached Accessory Ancillary Product Product Building' Attached Building Product Min. Lot Size 3,600 sf 3,600 sf --' Max. Structure Height 32 ft 2,3 32 ft 2,3 28 ft 2,3 28/35 ft 2,3,8 28 ft 2,3 Max. No. Of Stories 2 2 2 2 1 Min. Area Per Unit 1,400 sf 1,000 sf 250 sf 1,500 sf -- Garage — 10 ft 10 ft street Min. Front Setback 10 ft 10 ft Other 5 ft 2 ft Structures 3 ft. pedestrian Min. Rear Setback 5 ft 5 ft 2 ft -- -- Min. Front/Side Facing Attached Garage (Carport) 15 ft / 3 fts 15 ft / 3 ft -- 5 ft -- Setback Min. Interior/Corner Side 5 ft / 5 ft 5 ft 6 / 5 ft 5 ft 6 / 5 ft 10 ft 10 ft Yard Setback' Min. Building To Building Setback 6 0 ft 0 ft 0 ft -- -- Max. Wall Height 6 ft 6 ft 6 ft 8 ft 10 ft 2 garage 2 garage spaces plus spaces plus Per current Max. Parking Required 0.5 guest 0.5 guest code space space Notes: 1. Detached garages/carports, casitas, carriage house units 2. Height is limited to 22' within 150' of the Madison & Avenue 58 R.O.W. 3. Excluding chimneys, porticos other incidental architectural features etc. may exceed max. structure height by up to 5 feet. 4. AC units, trellis elements, pools, and spas are allowed to encroach into side and rear setback areas within 3' of property line. 5. 0' setback allowed for products, such as duplexes or zero lot line units, that share a common wall. 6. Subject to applicable building code requirements 7. -- = Not Applicable 8. Residence/Clubhouse As indicated in the table above, the development standards for structure height and number of stories are similar between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2/Revised Project. Front, side, and interior setbacks vary between 2 and 10 feet. Finally, maximum wall heights for the Revised Project are 2 to 4 feet higher than those allowed within the Preferred Alternative. However, these differences are subtle and will not change the impacts associated with scenic vistas or visual character. In addition to the commercial and residential land uses, the Preferred Alternative included development of a resort area, recreational open space, and a Wave Basin. Development standards Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 9 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO for these uses were analyzed in the DEIR. Alternative 2 and the Revised Project do not propose the resort, recreational open space, or Wave Basin facility. Instead, Alternative 2 and the Revised Project would develop a golf course. Golf courses provide large areas for greenspace, providing unobstructed views of scenic vistas. The golf course would provide similar views within golf course and residential communities that currently exist within the City of La Quinta, including the property east of Madison Street. Design features of the Revised Project, including architecture, landscaping, and development standards are all required to adhere to the design guidelines in the Specific Plan. The Revised Project's architectural style will be different than the style currently described in SP 03-067, which proposed traditional Spanish -style homes. The Revised Project proposes a Desert Modern architectural style more consistent with current architectural trends. Although the architectural style will be different, the mass and scale and land use proposed for the Revised Project will be similar to the surrounding residential communities, which also include single family residential homes. Additionally, the Revised Project is surrounded by perimeter block wall and landscaping, similar to the existing residential communities in the local area, and will not create inconsistencies with the existing development in the surrounding area, including the existing Andalusia project on the east side of Madison Street. Development of the perimeter block wall and residential homes, as well as perimeter landscaping which would be expected to occur under Alternative 2 and the Revised Project would result in partially obstructed views of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and complete obstruction of Coral Mountain from some locations, since the blockage occurs as a result of the construction of perimeter walls and houses. The impacts of the Revised Project would be equivalent to those analyzed in the DEIR for Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. However, homes built under both the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would comply with Section 9.50.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, which limits building heights to 22 feet, if located within 150 feet of an image corridor (i.e., Avenue 58 and Madison Street). The Revised Project and Alternative 2 would also be required to adhere to design standards as shown in Table 1-4 and 1-5 above. The development of the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would result in equivalent impacts to scenic vistas because they would both include the construction of perimeter walls, landscaping, and homes along the perimeter roadways. Therefore, similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised project would implement Mitigation Measure AES -1, which requires the perimeter walls to be setback from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way by a minimum average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC), which would be confirmed through the City's review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape plans, and Mitigation Measure AES -2, which requires a minimum setback of 75 feet between any residential structure and the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way. As Alternative 2 and the Revised Project would allow development that would affect views of Coral Mountain from certain viewpoints on Avenue 58 and Madison Street, impacts to scenic vistas of Coral Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 10 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Mountain would be significant and unavoidable under both scenarios. In addition, views of the Santa Rosas would be partially obstructed by the residential structures and perimeter improvements, but the mid-range and ridgelines of the Santa Rosas would generally remain visible. Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 analyses in the DEIR, the Revised Project would result in less than significant impacts to scenic quality and visual character because the project is surrounded by similar uses in the area, particularly the existing residential communities east and north of the project. Building materials proposed for the Revised Project include high-performance materials, natural stone, stucco, architectural concrete, pre -finished metal panels, cementitious panels or siding, and thermally -modified wood siding. Additionally, the single family residential and golf course uses will be surrounded by block walls and landscaping, similar to the existing residential and golf communities in the area. The block walls and landscaping will conceal the property from the view of motorists and pedestrians along the public rights-of-way (Madison Street and Avenue 58). Therefore, the Revised Project would not significantly impact the scenic quality and visual character in the area. The Revised Project and Alternative 2 would both include lighting, consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan and the Municipal Code, including commercial lighting at the neighborhood shopping center at the northeast corner, and residential and safety lighting at the homes and golf course. The lighting would be expected to conform to Municipal Code standards, be shielded and low intensity, and not emit light beyond the property line. Compliance with Specific Plan and Municipal Code requirements would, under both the Revised Project and Alternative 2, ensure that impacts would be less than significant. In summary, the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of the same low-density residential, neighborhood commercial, and golf course uses on the same project site, and accordingly, would result in the same aesthetic impacts. As compared to the Preferred Alternative studied in the DEIR, the Revised Project would have reduced aesthetic impacts because the Revised Project does not include the Wave Basin or surrounding resort area and would not include the Wave Basin lighting. The impacts of the Revised Project are the same as Alternative 2 and no more significant impacts, or impacts not previously analyzed, would result from implementation of the Revised Project. The Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project would be required to implement the following mitigation measures: AES -1 The perimeter walls around the low density residential planning areas shall be setback from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way by a minimum average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC), which shall be confirmed through the City's review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape plans to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 11 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO AES -2 All residential structures shall be setback by a minimum of 75 feet from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. Air Quality Preferred Alternative The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts involving a conflict with or obstruction to implementation of the applicable air quality plan(s); exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or resulting in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. With respect to any cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, the Preferred Alternative would result in potentially significant impacts due to the potential exceedance of the SCAQMD threshold for VOC from construction and operational activities. As a result, two construction -source mitigation measures (AQ -1 and AQ -2) were provided to prevent the overlap of paving and architectural coating phases during construction (AQ -1) and requiring equipment greater than 150 horsepower to comply with the EPA/CARB Tier 3 emission standards (AQ -2). With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2, construction activities would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure AQ - 3 requires the use of low VOC paints for re -painting and maintenance of exterior structures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113. The DEIR found that, with implementation of the Project Design Features and mitigation measures AQ -1 through AQ -3, the Preferred Alternative would have less than significant impacts to air quality. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation under the existing entitlements, consisting of a low density residential and golf community. Construction impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to those analyzed under the Preferred Alternative, because the same area would be disturbed, and the entire site would be developed. Based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB)'s Draft 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, traffic - related mobile sources contribute a majority of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative 2 is expected to generate 13% more trips compared to the Preferred Alternative due to the number of single-family residential dwelling units and the lack of internal relationships to services and activities associated with the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 would have reduced emissions associated with the production of electricity and water, because it would not include a Wave Basin, and the need for electricity associated with that feature. Although air quality emission increases or decreases are not linear in the CalEEMod model, Alternative 2 would result in elevated emissions associated with vehicle trips. Given that under the Preferred Alternative, the emissions associated Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 12 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO with NOx, which are directly influenced by vehicle emissions, would be below but close to significance thresholds, Alternative 2 would be expected to have significant NOx emissions, and to require mitigation. As with the proposed project, VOC emissions would also be expected to exceed significance thresholds, and mitigation would be required. For the Preferred Alternative, PDFs and mitigation resulted in an average reduction of 12% to 15% in criteria air pollutant emissions. By comparison, Alternative 2 is expected to achieve a less of a reduction in criteria air pollutant emissions from PDF implementation because Alternative 2 cannot be assumed to include the same level of vehicle trip reductions from commute trip reduction programs, telecommuting and alternative work schedules, employer-sponsored shuttles, on-site photovoltaic electricity supply as PDFs because of the substantially reduced employment levels under Alternative 2 (the other PDFs were assumed to be included in Alternative 2 with equal efficacy). Overall, however, impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be greater than the Preferred Alternative for operations, and equivalent during construction, as further described in the DEIR. Revised Project The Revised Project would involve General Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments to allow for minor modifications to acreages and distribution of land uses, but the proposed low-density residential, golf, and neighborhood commercial uses would be equivalent to the existing entitlements for the site, as it was analyzed for Alternative 2 in the DEIR. The Revised Project would be consistent with the growth projections from the City of La Quinta General Plan as they have been factored into the regional AQMP. As concluded for Alternative 2 and for the Preferred Alternative in the DEIR, the Revised Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQMP. Implementation of the Revised Project would entail construction and operations substantially the same as what is analyzed in Alternative 2 in the EIR. Therefore, construction and operational impacts associated with the Revised Project would be the same as those projected for Alternative 2, because the same area would be disturbed, and the entire site would be developed with the same proposed uses. Like Alternative 2, the Revised Project would require Mitigation Measures AQ -1 to prevent the overlap of construction paving and architectural coating phases, as well as AQ -2 to comply with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emission standards on equipment greaterthan 150 horsepower. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 would help the Revised Project achieve a reduction of construction -related VOC emission levels, while Mitigation Measure AQ -2 would help achieve a reduction of construction -related PM10 emissions below the applicable numeric thresholds to prevent a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment. The DEIR Air Quality analysis for the Preferred Alternative utilized CalEEMod 2016 as the most current software version available at the time of DEIR NOP, to calculate the project emissions and compare them against the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds published in April of 2019. In March of 2023, SCAQMD published updated operational thresholds for VOC and NOx applicable to the Coachella Valley which are lower relative to the 2019 thresholds. The comparison of SCAQMD Air Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 13 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Quality Significance Thresholds is provided in Table 6. Since the time of DEIR preparation, a more current version of CalEEMod (2022) has also been made available for air emissions calculations. In connection with the CEQA analysis for the Revised Project, Urban Crossroads prepared a supplemental Air Quality & GHG Assessment to provide updated operational emissions calculations for the Revised Project (see Appendix A) using CaIEEMod 2022. The updated emissions calculations and a comparison of those calculations and the operational emissions for the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIR, are provided in Table 7 below. For all criteria air pollutants (NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) except VOC, Alternative 2, the Revised Project and the Preferred Alternative would generate emission levels below the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. The DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would result in increased emissions of VOCs compared to the Preferred Alternative, and the Revised project would have the same level of increased VOC emissions. In addition, these emissions calculations for the Revised Project are considered conservative because they do not include incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ -3, which will require the use of low VOC paints and will reduce the Revised Project's VOC emissions. It should be noted that the table below shows the Preferred Alternative's emissions summary after taking into account Mitigation Measure AQ -3 and the project design features identified in the EIR. Table 6 Comparison of SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Operational Thresholds SCAQMD Air Quality Significance 0 erational Thresholds in Pounds 3er Da Publication Date VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 Aril 2019 75 100 550 150 150 55 March 2023 55 55 550 150 150 55 Table 7 Air Quality Comparison Table Comparison of Operational Emissions in Pounds per Da — Unmiti ated VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 Preferred Alternative 87.49 96.08 242.25 0.64 54.51 16.06 April 2019 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance 75 100 550 150 150 55 Thresholds Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No No No Alternative 2 and Revised Project* 94.64 67.81 501.84 1.13 34.62 7.88 March 2023 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance 55 55 550 150 150 55 Thresholds Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes No No No No *Theoperational emissions for Alternative 2 and the Revised Project are equivalent. Overall, the operational air quality emissions from the Revised Project are considered to be equivalent to and consistent with Alternative 2. The emission levels of Alternative 2 in relation to the SCAQMD Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 14 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Thresholds are assumed to be comparable to the emission quantities calculated for the Revised Project in Table 7 because of the shared project dimensions and land uses. Although the level of operational VOC emissions under the Revised Project and Alternative 2 are greater than under the Preferred Alternative, this increased impact was fully disclosed in the DEIR and identified as a potentially significant impact under Alternative 2. However, the Revised Project will not have any increased emissions over what was analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR for Alternative 2, and therefore, the Revised Project will not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously disclosed in the DEIR for any criteria air pollutant. In addition, the Revised Project (and Alternative 2) would have reduced emissions for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, as compared to the Preferred Alternative. Moreover, the supplemental Air Quality/GHG assessment by Urban Crossroads demonstrates that the Revised Project will not have a significant impact relating to NOx emissions, as was stated could occur under Alternative 2 in the DEIR. The analysis of Alternative 2 in the DEIR concluded that Alternative 2 would have potentially significant air quality impacts concerning NOx and VOC, and that these impacts would be greater than under the Preferred Alternative. The DEIR concluded that Alternative 2 would result in an increase in daily vehicle trips of approximately 13% as compared to the Preferred Alternative. Although the Revised Project would result in the same increase in daily vehicle trips as Alternative 2 because both scenarios involve exactly the same number of homes, commercial square footage, and golf course development, the increase in land use trip generation rates associated with the updated ITE 11th Edition result in an increase in projected total daily vehicle trips from 7,923 to 8,762, but this approximately 10.5% increase in total trips will not result in any new or substantially more severe air quality impacts because the same increase would apply to Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative if the updated ITE 11th Edition trip generation rates were applied to those scenarios. In addition, the Revised Project (like Alternative 2) would not require as much energy as the Preferred Alternative for treatment of water and for other Wave Basin operations (see pages 7-17 and 7-18 of the DEIR for a more detailed comparison of the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2). Overall, the Revised Project will have the same Air Quality impacts as Alternative 2, and as discussed in the DEIR, these impacts will be greaterthan the Preferred Alternative with respect to operational emissions due to the increased VOC and NOx emissions. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the DEIR. The same mitigation measures as those proposed in the DEIR for the Preferred Alternative would be implemented for the Revised Project, consisting of AQ -1 through AQ -3. Given that the Revised Project would involve the same land use categories, with minor acreage and configuration changes, as those analyzed for Alternative 2 in the DEIR, this development scenario would not include facilities or activities known to generate other emissions, such as those leading to objectionable odors capable of adversely affecting a localized or substantial number of people. Construction of the Revised Project would result in temporary equipment exhaust and the application Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 15 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO of asphalt and architectural coatings that would emit short-term and intermittent odors detectable at close proximity, consistent with the DEIR findings for Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative, but the localized and regional emission levels would be mitigated specifically for VOC and PM10 to below the applicable thresholds to prevent a cumulative considerable increase or condition adversely affecting a substantial number of people. During the life of the project, the Revised Project would involve the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) in covered containers and removed at regular intervals as a standard function of operational waste management, consistent with Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. Operation of the Revised Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge, from any source whatsoever, of air contaminants, odors, or other material at quantities resulting in injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public. Pertaining to other construction or operational emissions, including those associated with objectionable odors, the Revised Project would result in less than significant impacts. Construction -Source Mitigation Measures AQ -1: During Phase 1 of construction, the paving installation activity shall not overlap with the architectural coating (building painting) activity. That prohibition shall be included on all building plans. AQ -2: For equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards shall be required, and all construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Operational -Source Mitigation Measures AQ -3: The project will require the use of low VOC paints for re -painting and maintenance of exterior structures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113(not to exceed 50 grams per liter VOCs for interior and exterior building envelope re -painting). Under federal and state law, SCAQMD is under a legal obligation to enforce air pollution regulations. These regulations are primarily meant to ensure that the surrounding (or ambient) air meets federal and state air quality standards. The South Coast AQMD also has broad authority to regulate toxic and hazardous air emissions, and these regulations are enforced in the same manner as those which pertain to the ambient air quality standards. Biological Resources Preferred Alternative The DEIR identified seven federally/State listed species as having the potential to occur in the project vicinity. These include the Coachella Valley milkvetch, triple -ribbed milkvetch, Casey's June beetle, desert pupfish, desert slender salamander, Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and the Peninsular Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 16 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO bighorn sheep (PBS). However, it was determined that the project site contains suitable habitat for only one species, the Coachella Valley milkvetch (CVMV), which is covered under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Therefore, payment of a development fee would mitigate any impacts to the CVMV. The Preferred Alternative would not affect any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status. Additionally, Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS), which are Federally listed as Endangered, State -listed as Threatened, a California Fully Protected Species, and CVMSHCP covered species, have been identified in elevated terrain in La Quinta, and PBS habitat occurs in the vicinity of the project site with known PBS visits to the adjacent Coral Mountain. Potential impacts to PBS were determined to be less than significant because the project includes construction of a new sheep barrier along the western boundary of the project site, consistent with the sheep fence being installed in other areas in La Quinta adjacent to PBS habitat. There are no 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 lakes, rivers, or streambeds regulated pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code by the CDFW are present within the limits of the project site. Therefore, development of the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans. The site does not contain, nor is adjacent to, federally protected wetlands, marshes or other drainage features. No blue -line stream corridors (streams or dry washes) are shown on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps for the project site nor are there botanical indicators of such corridors. As a result, implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in the direct removal, filling or other hydrological interruption to federally protected wetlands. The DEIR (and supporting technical reports) found no evidence of migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites on the project site or adjacent properties, and the Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to have significant impacts related to habitat fragmentation and regional wildlife movement. Although burrowing owls were not observed onsite during the field investigation, the site provides suitable habitat for the species and the owls can take up residence on the site at any time. Therefore, a pre -construction burrowing owl survey (Mitigation Measure BI0-1) was required using accepted protocol (as determined by CDFW) to reduce the impact to less than significant levels. The project site also contains suitable roosting and foraging habitat for multiple bat species. Therefore, to avoid impacts to all potential bat species which may occur on the site, maternity -season surveys and follow-up actions were provided in Mitigation Measure BI0-2 through BI0-5, reducing impacts to roosting bats to less than significant levels. Finally, to reduce the impact to potential nesting birds that could occur onsite to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measure BIO -6 requires vegetation removal to be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (January 15 through August 31) to ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. Any vegetation removal and/or construction activities that occur during the nesting season will Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 17 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO require that all suitable habitat be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qu Finally, the DEIR addressed the City's participation in the CVMSHCP, and required the payment of mandated fees to mitigate impacts to species covered by the Plan in Mitigation Measure 13I0-6.alified biologist before commencement of clearing. 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. Moreover, development of the Preferred Alternative would not conflict with any local policy relating to these species, because the City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance that protects any of the tree species that occur onsite. Alternative 2 The Alternatives analysis in the DEIR determined that impacts to biological resources would be consistent with the Preferred Alternative because the same physical area would be developed, and any development that would occur onsite would be subject to Mitigation Measures 13I0-1 through 13I0-6, listed above. The mitigation measures would also be imposed for development of Alternative 2 to reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels. The DEIR concluded that Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to biological resources since both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 would result in development of the 384.5 -acre property. However, impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels under both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2. Revised Project The Revised Project would result in similar impacts to biological resources, compared to both Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the DEIR, because the same area of land would be disturbed. Development of the site could impact the CVMV, which is covered under the CVMSHCP. Therefore, the Revised Project would be required to pay the development fee to mitigate any impacts to the CVMV. Impact to any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status would be reduced to less than significant levels. Consistent with all Alternatives in the DEIR, the site does not contain, nor is adjacent to, jurisdictional waters, lakes, rivers, or streambeds, federally protected wetlands, marshes or other drainage features. No blue -line stream corridors (streams or dry washes) are shown on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps for the project site nor are there botanical indicators of such corridors. As a result, implementation of the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, or the Revised Project would not result in the direct removal, filling or other hydrological interruption to federally protected wetlands, or impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 18 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO As discussed above, development of the site could impact burrowing owls, nesting birds, or bats if they were to occur onsite. Therefore, under the Revised Project, as with Alternative 2, the actions required by Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through 13I0-6 would be applied, reducing impacts to these species to less than significant levels. Moreover, development of the Revised Project would not conflict with any local policy relating to these species, because the City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance that protects any of the tree species that occur onsite. Finally, the Revised Project would be required to pay mandated fees to mitigate impacts to species covered by the CVMSHCP in Mitigation Measure 1310-6. As established in Section 4.3, Biological Resources of the DEIR, development of the 384.5 -acre property would impact onsite biological resources, therefore, mitigation is recommended to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. The mitigation measures were: BI0-1: Burrowing owl surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist, approved by the City prior to any site disturbance activities. 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 surveythe construction area and an area up to 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. If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures, consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP. BI0-2: 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 Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 19 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO 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. BI0-3: Removal of trees (including palm trees) shall occur outside 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 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. BI0-4: To avoid 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 (i.e., dark sky compliant lighting) installed to ensure that there is no light trespass on to Coral Mountain and surrounding open space. BI0-5: A qualified bat biologist shall confirm the absence of roosting bats prior to any restoration work or other disturbance of the adobe site. 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). BI0-6: 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. 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 surveyed for the presence of nesting birds Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 20 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO 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. In response to CDFW comments, the following mitigation measures were added to the EIR to address construction and operational noise on wildlife using Coral Mountain, project landscaping, lake maintenance, and Peninsular bighorn sheep: BI0-7: To ensure that the Project will avoid any significant construction or operational noise impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain, noise monitoring will occur for all construction activities using heavy equipment within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. If noise levels exceed 75 dBA, construction or operational changes or other modifications shall be made, as directed by the project biologist to reduce the noise levels at Coral Mountain to below 75 dBA. BI0-8: Existing native vegetation, particularly palo verde trees, will be retained where feasible. Landscaping shall include native desert species. BI0-9: Onsite lakes will be designed and constructed by industry professionals and will incorporate proper aeration, circulation and filtration to maintain a balanced lake ecosystem. Lakes will be stocked with beneficial fish and plant species. Limited chemical applications will be utilized as necessary. Ongoing maintenance will ensure that onsite lakes function properly to control any invasive species or other nuisance conditions. BIO -10: An education program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the commercial, open space, and low-density community through the use of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what threats this species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these threats. This includes information that explains: (1) why restrictions on toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 21 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO With the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -7 through BIO -10, impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain, native desert species, lake ecosystems, and Peninsular bighorn sheep would be reduced to less than significant levels. All mitigation measures identified in the DEIR (with the exception of the Wave Basin lighting measure which is no longer applicable) would also be imposed for development of the Revised Project to reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels. The Revised Project, like Alternative 2, proposes a golf course, thus providing suitable grazing habitat for the sheep. Therefore, as a part of project design, the Revised Project would include a sheep protection plan to ensure that PBS are restricted from entering the project. The sheep protection plan includes implementation of fencing/walls along the entire project perimeter as a physical barrier to prevent PBS from accessing the site, as well as an approved native species plant palette to avoid specimens listed as "prohibited invasive ornamental plants" in certain open space areas and on lots adjoining any sheep barrier, consistent with the sheep protection plan included with the Preferred Alternative. Accordingly, the Revised Project (like Alternative 2) will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts to biological resources than previously analyzed in the DEIR for either Alternative 2 or the Preferred Alternative. Cultural Resources Preferred Alternative As discussed in the DEIR, the project site previously operated as an agricultural business until the late 20th century before being abandoned in the 1990s. Remains of the agricultural operations include a partially collapsed adobe, which has been recorded into the California Historical Resources Inventory. Although the survey completed for the DEIR determined that the adobe has been vandalized, burned, and further deteriorated, it still remains eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. Therefore, to avoid impacts to this site, no earth moving activities shall occur until the site is fenced and flagged; a comprehensive recordation project of the site has been completed; and preservation and stabilization of the remains in place as a community feature with an informational plaque has been completed, as described in Mitigation Measure CUL -1. CUL -1 also requires the preservation of the site in perpetuity by the Homeowners' Association for the project. The implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would reduce impacts to the adobe site to less than significant levels. As stated in the DEIR, the vast majority of the previously recorded cultural resources within a one - mile radius of the project site (62 sites and 48 isolates) were prehistoric. The sites mainly consisted of ceramic lithic scatters with some bedrock milling features, ground stone artifacts, and the remnants of fire hearths. A total of eight sites and seven isolates are known to be present within or partially within the project boundary today. Only three sites constitute an archaeological and historical resource. Three of the sites contain panels of rock art as well as milling features and ceramics Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 22 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO contributory to the rock art panel areas. The technical analysis determined that the sites are also eligible for listing in the California Register. Therefore, fencing and delineation of the area prior to any development activity, the long-term protection of these sites, through prohibition of development, and the recordation of protective easements, as well as a program of research and documentation of the sites, were required as Mitigation Measure CUL -5 to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL -2 and CUL -3 require monitoring on the site for all earth moving activities by both an archaeological and Tribal monitor. Finally, all construction workers were required to receive sensitivity training during all aspects and phases of project construction (CUL -4). In addition to the findings of the archaeologist, the City conducted Tribal consultation in conformance with SB 18 and AB 52. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians requested consultation, and informed the City that this area is of high sensitivity to the Cahuilla people. A number of mitigation measures were recommended by the Tribe. To avoid the disturbance of any human remains, the project was required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has examined the remains. In addition, CUL -2 and CUL -3, which require on-site monitoring, will ensure that ground disturbing activities are observed by experts who can recognize such resources if unearthed. The mitigation measures which were applied to the Preferred Alternative were: CUL -1: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to preserve the information on the adobe building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project's Homeowners Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre -1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun -colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 23 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20' century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al.1998:54). CUL -2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and activities. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. CUL -3: An approved Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Native American Cultural Resource Monitor shall be present during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys) for the project. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the Tribal monitor can assess the significance of the find. CUL -4: Prior to ground disturbance during any phase of the project, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all workers, conducted by the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). CUL -5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contains the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project construction through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Deed restrictions shall be recorded for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas and provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance of any portion of Planning Area III. For the balance of Site 33-001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to ground disturbance to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI and their approval provided to the City in writing prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site. Alternative 2 Since Alternative 2 would develop the same acreage as the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures CUL -1 through CUL -5; therefore, reducing Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 24 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO impacts to existing cultural resources onsite, potential onsite cultural resources, and human remains to less than significant levels. Revised Project Since the Revised Project, like Alternative 2, would disturb the same physical area as the Preferred Alternative, the impacts will be consistent with the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, all of the mitigation measures applied to the Preferred Alternative would be applied to both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project, and impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. Energy Preferred Alternative Construction: During construction, the Preferred Alternative would consume 57,987.3 kWh of electricity, 813,083 gallons of diesel, and 498,139 gallons of gasoline, as determined in the DEIR. Consumption of natural gas would not occur during construction. The estimated construction electricity usage represents approximately 0.67 percent of the Preferred Alternative's estimated annual operational demand, which, as discussed below, would be within the supply and infrastructure service capabilities of IID. Additionally, there are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities, or use of equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Mitigation Measure AQ -2 requires that off-road diesel construction equipment (greater than 150 horsepower) complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards. The implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -2 would assist in reducing construction -related gasoline consumption at the project site, and project construction would not consume petroleum in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Operation: The Preferred Alternative would consume approximately 8,642,729 kWh of electricity annually, 21,855,400 kBTU of natural gas annually, and 749,717 gallons of petroleum annually, per the DEIR. The Preferred Alternative would implement the use of photovoltaic (PV) systems to generate 15 percent of the power demand, high efficiency lighting, and applying energy efficient design building shells and building components, such as windows, roof systems, electrical lighting systems, and heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems to meet Building Code standards in effect at the time development occurs. The project would also be required to install water efficient plumbing fixtures and irrigation systems, light -emitting diode (LED) technology within homes, use recycled water (non - potable) for common area landscape irrigation, use drought -tolerant plants in landscape design, install Energy Star appliances, and install tankless water heater systems. These are required by State Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 25 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Tile 24 and CalGreen standards. The Preferred Alternative would also reduce vehicle miles traveled and thus petroleum fuel consumption by providing a mix of various land uses onsite, and pedestrian and multi -modal connections between the land uses. With the implementation of the standards and requirements above, the DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to energy resources. The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative's energy consumption would not exceed the City's, IID's, or SoCal Gas's capacity for their respective service area (with implementation of the infrastructure improvements described in the project description and the Utilities and Service Systems discussion). The DEIR also analyzed the Preferred Alternative's consistency with State and local energy plans, including EPA/CARB Tier 3 Emissions Standards, Title 24, La Quinta's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, and the City's General Plan. Due to the mixed-use nature of the Preferred Alternative, and the project's implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -2 during construction, and the standards and requirements imposed by State and local agencies, the DEIR concluded that the Preferred Alternative was consistent with the State and local energy plans. Alternative 2 Construction: Short-term energy consumption related to construction activities would be similar during development of both Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative, since they both would develop the same project area. Both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 would consume 57,987.3 kWh of electricity, 813,083 gallons of diesel, and 498,139 gallons of gasoline, as determined in the DEIR. Therefore, like the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would not result in excessive or unnecessary energy consumption. Operation: As analyzed in the DEIR, Alternative 2 would not result in the development of the tourist commercial portion of the site, which includes the Wave Basin, associated light fixtures, hotel uses, and ancillary resort commercial uses. Based on calculations using CalEEMod (Version 2016.3.2), the DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would require 5,071,006 kWh in electric power, and 13,182,066.5 kBTU in natural gas annually. Table 8 Alternative 2 Energy Use Land Use Electricity KWh Natural Gas kBTU 750 Residential (Low Density) 4,614,495* 13,182,066.5 60,000 sf Commercial 456,511 98,400 Golf 0 0 Total 5,071,006 13,280,466.5 Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 26 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO *This number was determined by using the project's kWh value, dividing it by 496 (the project's proposed low density residential number) to receive the amount of electricity per residential unit (6,152.66 kWhr). Then 6,152.66 kWhr was multiplied by 750 to determine how much electricity 750 dwelling units would consume. The same was completed for natural gas. The DEIR compared electricity and natural gas consumed by Alternative 2 to the Preferred Alternative and determined that electricity and natural gas would be reduced by 41 percent and 40 percent, respectively (see table below). This is a result of replacing the resort uses included in the Preferred Alternative with more single-family homes and a golf course. Table 9 Energy Consumption Comparison However, updates to the CalEEMod modeling system to generate more accurate outputs have occurred since the DEIR was written. These updates result in increased operational electricity and natural gas consumption totals (compared to CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 model) and are provided in the Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment included in Appendix A. The Assessment concluded that the operation of 750 residential homes, a golf course, and commercial uses would consume 7,891,477 kWh per year of electricity, and 27,076,002 kBTU per year of natural gas. It is important to note that the increase in energy use between Alternative 2 and the Revised Project is solely the result of the CalEEMod update, as the proposed uses remain the same. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would be required to implement State and local standards for energy efficiency as described above to meet Building Code standards in effect at the time development occurs. Alternative 2 is anticipated to have a higher daily VMT and per capita VMT because it generates more daily trips because it lacks the complimentary mix of uses on-site and enhanced connectivity between those uses which reduce per capita VMT. Alternative 2 was expected to generate 13% more trips compared to the Preferred Alternative due to the increased number of single-family residential dwelling units and reduction in internal trip capture. The proposed 60,000 square feet of commercial uses at the corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street would continue to result in a reduction in trips due to trip capture in Alternative 2. Therefore, due to the increased vehicle trips associated with the 750 residential units, Alternative 2 would result in an approximately 13% increased petroleum consumption compared to the Preferred Alternative, which equates to 831,228 gallons of petroleum consumed annually. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 27 January 2024 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Percent Source Units Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Difference Electricity Total kWh/yr 5,071,006 8,642,729 41% less Natural Gas Total kBTU/yr 13,280,466.5 21,855,400 40% less However, updates to the CalEEMod modeling system to generate more accurate outputs have occurred since the DEIR was written. These updates result in increased operational electricity and natural gas consumption totals (compared to CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 model) and are provided in the Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment included in Appendix A. The Assessment concluded that the operation of 750 residential homes, a golf course, and commercial uses would consume 7,891,477 kWh per year of electricity, and 27,076,002 kBTU per year of natural gas. It is important to note that the increase in energy use between Alternative 2 and the Revised Project is solely the result of the CalEEMod update, as the proposed uses remain the same. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would be required to implement State and local standards for energy efficiency as described above to meet Building Code standards in effect at the time development occurs. Alternative 2 is anticipated to have a higher daily VMT and per capita VMT because it generates more daily trips because it lacks the complimentary mix of uses on-site and enhanced connectivity between those uses which reduce per capita VMT. Alternative 2 was expected to generate 13% more trips compared to the Preferred Alternative due to the increased number of single-family residential dwelling units and reduction in internal trip capture. The proposed 60,000 square feet of commercial uses at the corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street would continue to result in a reduction in trips due to trip capture in Alternative 2. Therefore, due to the increased vehicle trips associated with the 750 residential units, Alternative 2 would result in an approximately 13% increased petroleum consumption compared to the Preferred Alternative, which equates to 831,228 gallons of petroleum consumed annually. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 27 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 10 Petroleum Consumption Comparison Additionally, under either alternative, fuel efficiencies are anticipated to increase during the lifetime of the project, as older vehicles are replaced with newer more efficient models (including plug-in hybrid, and zero emission vehicles). Thus, petroleum use is anticipated to decrease over time. Overall, development and operation of the Preferred Alternative or Alternative 2 would not result in excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption or cause any significant impacts regarding energy resources due to the compliance with State and local energy -efficiency standards. Revised Project Due to the undeveloped and vacant nature of the site, the 384.5 -acre site does not currently consume energy resources and electricity and natural gas facilities are not currently provided to the site. As would be the case with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, development and operation of the Revised Project would result in an increase of energy consumption at the site. Construction Short-term energy consumption related to construction activities during development of the Revised Project will be the same as under Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative because they would use similar amounts of electricity fortools and construction trailers, and petroleum fuels for the operation of machinery, large equipment, and employee vehicle trips. Natural gas would not be required during construction activities under any alternative, including the Revised Project. The table below illustrates construction -related energy use for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project, since all scenarios would develop the exact same acreage. Table 11 Summary of Energy Use During Construction Fuel Type Preferred Alternative Annual Fuel Consumption Alternative 2 Annual Fuel Consumption Percent Difference Gallons Petroleum 749,717 847,180 13% more Additionally, under either alternative, fuel efficiencies are anticipated to increase during the lifetime of the project, as older vehicles are replaced with newer more efficient models (including plug-in hybrid, and zero emission vehicles). Thus, petroleum use is anticipated to decrease over time. Overall, development and operation of the Preferred Alternative or Alternative 2 would not result in excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption or cause any significant impacts regarding energy resources due to the compliance with State and local energy -efficiency standards. Revised Project Due to the undeveloped and vacant nature of the site, the 384.5 -acre site does not currently consume energy resources and electricity and natural gas facilities are not currently provided to the site. As would be the case with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, development and operation of the Revised Project would result in an increase of energy consumption at the site. Construction Short-term energy consumption related to construction activities during development of the Revised Project will be the same as under Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative because they would use similar amounts of electricity fortools and construction trailers, and petroleum fuels for the operation of machinery, large equipment, and employee vehicle trips. Natural gas would not be required during construction activities under any alternative, including the Revised Project. The table below illustrates construction -related energy use for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project, since all scenarios would develop the exact same acreage. Table 11 Summary of Energy Use During Construction Fuel Type Units Total Construction Energy Use Electricity kWh 57,987.3 Diesel Gallons 813,086 Gasoline Gallons 498,139 Notes: Electricity for the project is total construction usage. Mobile gasoline and diesel usage were calculated using the figures provided in the CaIEEMod model. Because construction activities associated with the Revised Project would be the same as Alternative 2, impacts would be similar and less than significant. Operation Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 28 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO As stated above, the electricity and natural gas consumption values utilized in the DEIR were generated using the most recent version of CalEEMod at the time the DEIR was prepared (Version 2016.3.2). CalEEMod has since updated its model. These updates result in increased operational electricity and natural gas consumption totals (compared to CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 model) as shown in the Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment. The Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment concluded that the operation of 750 residential homes, a golf course, and commercial uses would consume 7,891,477 kWh per year of electricity, and 27,076,002 kBTU per year of natural gas. The revised emissions between the two versions of the model are shown in Table 12. A comparison of the differences between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 as analyzed in the EIR, and the Revised Project analyzed under the current model, is provided in Table 13. Table 12 Alternative 2/Revised Project Energy Consumption Comparison V2016.3.2 Versus V2022.1.1.13 Source Units Energy Consumption Energy Consumption o Delta (/) Source Units 2016.3.2 2022.1.1.13 Electricity Total kWh/yr 5,071,006 7,891,477 55% Natural Gas Total kBTU/yr 13,280,466.5 27,076,002 104% Table 13 Operational Energy Consumption Comparison Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would be required incorporate energy efficient features to meet Building Code standards in effect at the time development occurs. The project would be required to comply with Title 24 and CalGreen requirements related to energy efficiency. As compared to the Preferred Alternative (indicated in Table 13 above), the Revised Project will use 751,252 kWh/year (8.7%) less electricity due to the elimination of the Wave Basin and resort uses. While the Revised Project is calculated to use 5,220,602 kBTU/year (24%) more natural gas than the Preferred Alternative, this is solely due to the changes in CalEEMod modeling. In reality, the Revised Project (like Alternative 2) would use substantially less natural gas than the Preferred Alternative (as shown in Table 13 above). As determined in the DEIR, the Wave Basin would result in the use of 1,528,430 kWh of electricity per year, and the resort uses would consume 3,260,870 kWh per year of electricity and 523,643 kBTU of natural gas per year. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 29 January 2024 Preferred Alternative Alternative 2 Revised Project Source Units CalEEMod 2016.3.2 CalEEMod 2016.3.2 CalEEMod 2022.1.1.13 Electricity Total kWh/yr 8,642,729 5,071,006 7,891,477 Natural Gas Total kBTU/yr 21,855,400 13,280,466.5 27,076,002 Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would be required incorporate energy efficient features to meet Building Code standards in effect at the time development occurs. The project would be required to comply with Title 24 and CalGreen requirements related to energy efficiency. As compared to the Preferred Alternative (indicated in Table 13 above), the Revised Project will use 751,252 kWh/year (8.7%) less electricity due to the elimination of the Wave Basin and resort uses. While the Revised Project is calculated to use 5,220,602 kBTU/year (24%) more natural gas than the Preferred Alternative, this is solely due to the changes in CalEEMod modeling. In reality, the Revised Project (like Alternative 2) would use substantially less natural gas than the Preferred Alternative (as shown in Table 13 above). As determined in the DEIR, the Wave Basin would result in the use of 1,528,430 kWh of electricity per year, and the resort uses would consume 3,260,870 kWh per year of electricity and 523,643 kBTU of natural gas per year. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 29 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Energy use was not considered excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary under the Preferred Alternative or Alternative 2, and thus not a significant effect. Accordingly, the reduced energy consumption of the Revised Project would also not be considered excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary. The Revised Project (like Alternative 2) will generate approximately 13% more daily trips than the Preferred Alternative, and thus result in approximately 97,463 more gallons of petroleum consumed compared to the Preferred Alternative (see Table 10, above) However, this is the same increase in daily trips analyzed in the DEIR for Alternative 2, and accordingly, does not constitute a substantial increase beyond what was analyzed in the DEIR. Additionally, as is the case for all alternatives, fuel efficiencies are anticipated to increase during the lifetime of the project, as older vehicles are replaced with newer more efficient models (including plug-in hybrid, and zero emission vehicles). Thus, petroleum use is anticipated to decrease overtime. Overall, development and operation under all three scenarios (the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project) would not result in excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption or significant impacts regarding energy resources due to the compliance with State and local energy -efficiency standards. Geology and Soils Preferred Alternative The DEIR, in the analysis of geology and soils, determined that development proposed in the Preferred Alternative is not located near an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or near areas impacted by landslides. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Development would also be required to comply with State seismic standards for construction to lessen impacts of seismic shaking. The DEIR also determined that impacts associated with erosion (waterborne and or airborne) would be less than significant with compliance to existing regulatory requirements, such as the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Soil conditions (i.e., the identification of liquefaction, collapsible soils, expansive soils onsite) were studied in the project - specific Geotechnical Report, which determined that impacts of unstable soil conditions would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. Development of the property would be required to comply with the recommendations provided in the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix G of the DEIR) to ensure the onsite soils can support the proposed foundations and structures (Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2). In order to avoid impacts to potential paleontological resources onsite, the DEIR required the implementation of mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The property would be required to retain a qualified paleontological monitor during all earth -moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet (GEO-3). With implementation of this measure, impacts were determined to be less than significant. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 30 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Mitigation measures specifically state: GEO-1 All designs for any water body on the site shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and comply with all seismic codes in effect at the time they are constructed. All designs shall be based on and incorporate the recommendation of a qualified soils engineer in a site and water body specific report attached to the plans submitted to the City. GEO-2 All earthwork including excavation, backfill and preparation of the subgrade soil, shall be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations, presented below, and portions of the local regulatory requirements, as applicable. All earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing of a qualified soil engineer. The following geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed project are based on observations from the field investigation program, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analyses. • Stripping: areas to be graded shall be cleared of the vegetation, associated root systems and debris. All areas scheduled to receive fill should be cleared of old fills and any irreducible matter. The stripping shall be removed off -sit or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas. Undocumented fill soil or loose soil shall be removed in its entirety and replaced as engineered fill. Voids left by obstruction shall be properly backfilled in accordance with the compaction recommendations of this report. • Preparation of the Residential Building Areas: in order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, the primary foundation bearing soil shall be over - excavated and recompacted. Over -excavation shall extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet blow the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. Once adequate removals have been verified, the exposed native soil shall be scarified, the moisture -conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. • Compaction: Soil to be used as engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris and other deleterious substances, and shall not contain irreducible matter greater than six (6) inches in maximum dimension. All fill materials shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding six inches in a loose condition. If import fill is required, the material shall be of a non -expansive nature and shall meet the following criteria: Plastic Index Less than 12 Liquid Limit Less than 35 Percent Soil Passing #200 Sieve Between 15% and 35% Maximum Aggregate Size 3 Inches The subgrade and all fill material shall be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The bottom of the exposed Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 31 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO subgrade shall be observed by a representative of Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials. • Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill shall be anticipated. It is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted shall be between 1 and 3 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained. GEO-3 All earth -moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor and continuous monitoring will become necessary if undisturbed, potentially fossiliferous lakebed sediments are encountered. The monitor shall be empowered to stop earth moving activities if fossils are identified. The monitor shall be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. A monitoring plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any earth moving permit, or the disturbance of any soils on the site, which will include: • Samples of sediments shall be collected and processed to recover small fossil remains. • Recovered specimens shall be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance when appropriate, shall be prepared upon completion of the research procedures outlined above. The report shall be provided to the City within 30 days of the conclusion of monitoring activities. Alternative 2 As was the case for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would not result in development in a fault zone, or next to a slope, since the land to be developed is the same. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, development of Alternative 2 would also be required to comply with State seismic standards for construction to lessen impacts of seismic shaking. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3, provided for the Preferred Alternative, also would apply to Alternative 2 to address impacts associated with seismic -related ground failure, ground subsidence, collapsible soils, corrosive soils, and paleontological resources, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant levels. Revised Project Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 32 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO As was the case for the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would not result in development in a fault zone, or next to a slope, since the land to be developed is the same. Development would be required to comply with State seismic standards for construction to lessen impacts of seismic shaking. As identified in the DEIR impacts concerning erosion (waterborne and soil) would be less than significant with compliance to existing regulatory requirements, such as the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The Revised Project would be required to implement these same requirements during construction. The Revised Project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 to reduce impacts of onsite soils to from liquefaction, expansion, and soil collapse. The Revised Project would introduce lakes throughout the golf course area for retention and aesthetic purposes, similar to those proposed in Alternative 2. These features are typical for golf courses and would be required to comply with seismic standards for construction. Finally, as would occur under any alternative, paleontological resources could occur onsite due to the undisturbed subsurface lakebed sediments from Holocene Lake Cahuilla, which are considered to have high paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-3 requires that all earthmoving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. Under any of the alternatives or the Revised Project, this mitigation measure reduces impacts to less than significant levels. As would be the case for Alternative 2, the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR would be applied to the Revised Project to address impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure, ground subsidence, collapsible soils, corrosive soils, and paleontological resources, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant levels. As analyzed in the EIR, Alternative 2 would result in similar, less than significant effects relating to geology and soils, and the same analysis and conclusions apply equally to the Revised Project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Preferred Alternative The DEIR found that the Preferred Alternative would not conflict with regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, specifically based on consistency with the applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Update aimed to achieve a statewide reduction in GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, resulting in less than significant impacts on plan conformance. The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in potentially significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. The DEIR found that the amortized annual construction emissions, events emissions, and operational project emissions from the Preferred Alternative would total approximately 17,270.47 MTCO2e per year, without PDFs and mitigation (See Table 14 below). When Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 33 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO adjusted for the service population of 2,672, the unmitigated GHG emissions resulted in a service population efficiency of 6.46 MTCO2e per SP per year, exceeding the threshold of 3.65 MTCO2e per SP per year and warranting the use of carbon credits to off -set the totals to the extent of meeting the service population efficiency target. Implementation of MM GHG-1 would require the purchase of carbon credits to offset the GHG emissions generated by the project that are in excess of the applicable threshold. However, as the credits would not change the actual GHG emissions levels of the project itself and the use of carbon credits as mitigation for GHG emissions has not been widely adopted in the Coachella Valley area for residential and resort community projects, the DEIR conservatively considered impacts associated with GHG emissions generated by the proposed project to be significant and unavoidable because the City cannot determine with certainty that the project's GHG emissions will be reduced to a less than significant level. Alternative 2 The Alternatives analysis in the DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would result in construction related GHG emission levels similar to those of the Preferred Alternative, in part because the same area would be disturbed, and the entire site would be developed. Based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB)'s Draft 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, traffic - related mobile sources contribute a majority of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative 2 was expected to generate approximately 13% more trips compared to the previously proposed project due to the increased number of single-family residential dwelling units and the lack of internal relationships to services and activities associated with the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 would have reduced criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the production of electricity and water, because it would not include a wave basin, and the need for electricity associated with that feature. Although emission increases or decreases are not linear in the CalEEMod model, Alternative 2 was determined in the DEIR to result in elevated GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips, as shown in Table 14. For the proposed project, PDFs resulted in a GHG emissions reduction of approximately 30%. Compared to the Preferred Project, Alternative 2 was expected to achieve a lower reduction in GHG emissions from PDF implementation because Alternative 2 could not be assumed to include commute trip reduction programs, telecommuting and alternative work schedules, and employer-sponsored shuttles with the same efficacy due to the substantially reduced number of workers (the other PDFs were assumed to be included in Alternative 2). Overall, therefore, GHG impacts associated with Alternative 2 were determined in the DEIR to be greater than the Preferred Alternative for operations and equivalent for construction activities, and would be significant and unavoidable. Revised Project Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 34 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO The Revised Project would be subject to the more current and increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards for design, construction, and operation, which, combined with CARB Mobile Source Strategy aimed at reducing emissions of precursors to criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases (GHG), and toxic air contaminants from mobile sources, would allow this development scenario to be consistent with the current statewide Scoping Plan Update, resulting in less than significant impacts on plan conformance. Construction impacts associated with the Revised Project would be substantially the same as those analyzed for Alternative 2 in the EIR, because the same project site acreage would be disturbed and developed over a similar period of time with the same uses. Once amortized over the 30 -year project life, these construction emissions did not constitute a material portion of total project GHG emissions (approximately 414 MTCO2e per year or 2.5%). A Supplemental Air Quality and GHG Assessment was prepared for the Revised Project. As displayed in Table 14, the revised project would result in unmitigated GHG emissions totaling approximately 14,978.42 MTCO2e per year after accounting for amortized annual construction emissions assumed to be equivalent to the preferred alternative. Such emission totals would be lower than those calculated for the Preferred Alternative. However, when adjusted for the respective service population (population and employment) of 2,228, the unmitigated service population efficiency would be approximately 6.72 MTCO2e per SP per year, which is relatively higher than the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, by comparison, the Revised Project would result in relatively lower total GHG emissions, but slightly higher emissions when adjusted for the respective service population. Regardless, the Revised Project, like both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, would result in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts. Both the Preferred Alternative and the Revised Project would require the purchase of carbon credits to reduce the annual emission levels and respective service population efficiency levels below 3.65 MTCO2e per SP per year. Table 14 Comparison of GHG Emissions Unmitigated GHG Emissions in MTCO2el r Operational Operational Total Service Amortized Annual Event Emissions (Area, Project Population Construction Emissions Emissions Energy, Mobile, Emissions (Population and Waste, Water Usage) per year Employment) Preferred Alternative 414.62 546.89 16,310.41 17,270.47 2,672 Alternative 2 and 414.62 Not Revised Project* (Assumed Equivalent to 14,563.80 14,978.42 2,228 Preferred Alternative)Applicable *The operational emissions for Alternative 2 and the Revised Project are equivalent. Overall, the Revised Project will have the same GHG impacts as Alternative 2, and as discussed in the DEIR, these impacts will be greater than the Preferred Alternative with respect to operational Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 35 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO emissions. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the DEIR on the basis of plan conformance and quantitative emissions. The same mitigation measure proposed in the DEIR for the Preferred Alternative would be implemented for the Revised Project, consisting of carbon credits in quantities that would help the project achieve a compliant population efficiency. Consistent with the DEIR findings for the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, because the use of carbon credits has not been broadly adopted in the Coachella Valley to mitigate GHG emissions impacts of residential and resort communities, and because even with the purchase of carbon credits will not lower the project's actual GHG emissions, this analysis conservatively considers the Revised Project to have a significant and unavoidable impact concerning GHG emissions, consistent with Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Preferred Alternative Construction: The Preferred Alternative would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or release hazardous materials into the environment during construction with the project's compliance with State law and standard measures (i.e., Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) which regulate safety procedures when using, handling, and storing hazardous materials during construction. Operation: Operation of the Preferred Alternative included a hotel/resort, commercial, residential, and recreational and open space uses on approximately 384.5 acres of vacant land. The nature of these uses was not expected to involve, as a primary activity, the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in quantities or in a manner that would pose a threat to the project and its surroundings or create a significant hazard through a foreseeable accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, operation of the Wave Basin, proposed in the Preferred Alternative, would involve the on-site storage of chemicals in quantities greater than or equal to fifty-five (55) gallons, and/or greater than or equal to five hundred (500) pounds for pools, which are considered hazardous materials. Therefore, under the administration of the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health (DEH), and in compliance with the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), the Wave basin would be required to secure a permit from the DEH and electronically submit a business plan in the Statewide Informational Management System. Compliance would result in less than significant impacts. The DEIR concluded that the Preferred Alternative is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school or included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Additionally, since the project site is surrounded by developed Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 36 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO streets, and proposes multiple access points to the proposed land uses, the DEIR determined that implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not interfere with critical facilities, emergency transportation and circulation, or emergency preparedness coordination. A Traffic Control Plan would be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all construction activities. This plan will reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic. Project access points would be reviewed by the Fire Department, to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Finally, the DEIR found that the site is not located in an area affected by wildfires. Overall, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials were found to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. Alternative 2 Construction Construction of Alternative 2 was expected to involve the temporary management and use of oils, fuels and other potentially flammable substances in a manner similar to the Preferred Alternative. Thus, as a regulatory requirement, Alternative 2 would be required to comply with the requirements of law, and implement a SWPPP during construction to regulate safety procedures when using, handling, and storing hazardous materials during construction. Impacts would be comparable to the Preferred Alternative and less than significant. Operation Under Alternative 2, the property would develop low density residential units, a golf course, and commercial retail uses. The nature of the uses proposed under Alternative 2 was not expected to involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in quantities or a manner that would pose a threat to the project and its surroundings or create a significant hazard through a foreseeable accident condition. This is because residential and commercial uses typically use cleaning or maintenance materials (paints, cleaning supplies, etc.), stored in small quantities during operation. However, if the golf course component of Alternative 2 were to store hazardous materials in quantities greater than 55 gallons of liquid, 500 pounds of solid, and 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, the same requirement to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to the Riverside County Fire Department would apply. Construction and operation of the 384.5 -acre site, under Alternative 2 will increase vehicular and multi -modal transportation along the local major roadways in the City. Primary access to the site would be expected to occur along Madison Street, with access to the commercial portion of the site from both Madison Street and Avenue 58. These roadways would provide public and emergency access into and out of the project property. As with the Preferred Alternative, no alteration to existing emergency evacuation routes would be proposed. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 37 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO As with the Preferred Alternative, a Traffic Control Plan would be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all construction activities. This plan will reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic. Project access points would be reviewed by the Fire Department, to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles. As determined in the DEIR, the site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or in an area impacted by wildfires, therefore, neither alternative would result in significant impacts to a school facility or wildfire. Alternative 2 was determined to also result in less than significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. Revised Project Cnnctn irtinn Construction activities associated with the Revised Project are the same as with Alternative 2, because they involve constructing the same homes, commercial square footage and golf course on the same site. Construction of the Revised Project is expected to involve the temporary management and use of oils, fuels, and other potentially flammable substances. Hazardous materials would be delivered, stored, and handled to manufacturer instructions and industry standards. Additionally, the contractor would be required to identify a controlled staging area within the project limits for storing materials and equipment, as required by a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The handling of potentially hazardous materials on-site would occur. Similar to Alternative 2, the Revised Project would implement safety procedures when using, handling, or storing hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant. Operation As the uses are the same under the Revised Project and Alternative 2, the operational effects relating to the use of hazardous materials would also be the same. As with Alternative 2, common hazardous materials utilized during the operation of residential, commercial, and golf uses can include everyday commercial products, such as pesticides, cleaning fluids, and household products. The golf course would result in the use and storage of larger amounts of pesticides and fertilizers as well as the maintenance of golf carts and other equipment used onsite than the Preferred Alternative, but these amounts would not be expected to be any greater than currently used and stored throughout the City's golf courses, nor are they expected to create any significant hazard because hazardous materials during operation of the Revised Project, as with Alternative 2, would be delivered, stored, and handled to manufacturer instructions and industry standards. Consistent with Alternative 2, there would be no uses onsite that would potentially create a risk to the public or environment or any activities that would inhibit any established hazard evacuation plan because the Revised Project Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 38 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO would implement safety procedures when using, handling, and storing hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would have similar effects relating to hazards and hazardous materials, which would be less than significant. If the Revised Project were to store hazardous materials in substantial quantities, the operator would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to the Riverside County Fire Department. The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, therefore, no Alternative would impact a school facility. Construction and operation of the Revised Project would increase vehicular and multi -modal transportation along local roadways in the City, similar to Alternative 2. Primary access to the site would be expected to occur along Madison Street, with access to the commercial portion of the site from both Madison Street and Avenue 58. These roadways will provide public and emergency access into and out of the property. As with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, no alteration to existing emergency evacuation routes would be proposed. A Traffic Control Plan will be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all construction activities for all the alternatives and for the Revised Project. This plan will reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic. Project access points would be reviewed by the Fire Department, to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Finally, the property is not located in a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) according to CALFIRE's High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsible Areas Map. Therefore, impacts of exposing people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires are expected to be less than significant for the Revised Project, as they were for all Alternatives. The Revised Project (like Alternative 2) would result in similar, less than significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials. Hydrology and Water Quality Preferred Alternative The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to all hydrology and water quality thresholds, including any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, surface water quality, and ground water quality, groundwater supplies, sustainable groundwater management, erosion, siltation, flooding, urban runoff, and implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan as explained below. The DEIR found, during construction and life of the project, that the Preferred Alternative would be required to implement the various compliance plans under the Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), state, and local regulations to prevent violations or impacts Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 39 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO to surface water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be implemented during the period of construction to comply with the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities. During the life of the project, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be met and demonstrated through a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP is also a requirement under the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Section 8.70.070. The Preferred Alternative relied on proposed on-site facilities to intercept and retain stormwater runoff on-site, sized according to the stormwater volume resulting from the controlling 100 -year storm event for the conditions of each project drainage area, as mandated by Section 13.21.120 (A) of the La Quinta Municipal Code and outlined in the La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06- 16. On the matter of groundwater supplies, the DEIR found that the Preferred Alternative would demand approximately 958.63 -acre feet per year (AFY) based on the analysis performed for the approved Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV). CVWD found that there was sufficient water supply to accommodate the land uses under the Preferred Alternative. Moreover, the Preferred Alternative would be subject to the locally adopted water -efficient landscape ordinance. On the matter of groundwater quality, the DEIR found that the Preferred Alternative would implement the required non-structural and structural pollution source control measures that work toward the protection of groundwater quality. Non-structural source control measures consist of site operations, activities, and/or programs described in the WQMP and implemented by the project operator to educate site managers, employees, and residents to prevent potential pollutants from being produced, coming into contact with the storm drain system, and impacting groundwater. Structural source control measures consist of facility design standards to prevent direct contact between potential pollutants and stormwater runoff. These measures would be privately maintained during the life of the project. The Preferred Alternative was found in the DIER to not result in any physical modifications to an existing CVWD recharge facility or result in any stormwater runoff condition capable of interfering with the facility's operation. On-site retention facilities would contribute to infiltration and groundwater recharge. On the matter of erosion, siltation, flooding, and urban runoff conditions, the Preferred Alternative was found to result in an increase in impervious land cover through the introduction of structures, hardscape and streets. However, the proposed storm drainage system with required on-site retention facilities and stabilized surfaces would control the volume and conveyance of runoff to prevent erosion and siltation. Flooding would be prevented through compliance with the City's engineering standards for land subdivision and development. Since the Preferred Alternative was required to Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 40 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO retain urban runoff on-site, it would not result in discharge affecting public storm drainage infrastructure. Moreover, all water quality pollution source control measures and stormwater management would be implemented consistent with the approved WQMP during the life of the project. Less than significant impacts were found for all hydrology and water quality thresholds. No mitigation was necessary. Alternative 2 The Alternatives analysis in the DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would result in site disturbance to an equivalent extent as the Preferred Alternative. Standard engineering design for Alternative 2 would be required to comply with City standards for the on-site retention of storm flows during the 100 -year storm, and would be expected to design retention basins, and similar facilities to those proposed for the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 would be subject to the same regulatory requirements, permit coverages, and engineering design approvals as the Preferred Alternative. These would include the most current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs associated with construction and post -construction stormwater management and surface water quality standards; a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to obtain coverage under the State's NPDES Construction General Permit; and the development, approval, and implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). No aspect of Alternative 2 would require deviation from these regulatory requirements and the associated stormwater controls. As discussed In the DIER Alternatives discussion under Utilities and Service Systems, Alternative 2 would require more water to irrigate the 18 -hole golf course than would be required for the Preferred Alternative; however, this increase in water demands was determined not to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, after following the regulatory program requirements designed specifically to prevent hydrologic, stormwater and surface water impairments, the impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would be similar to the Preferred Alternative and less than significant. Revised Project The disturbed area associated with the Revised Project would be the same as the 384.5 -acres disturbed by Alternative 2. Standard engineering design for the Revised Project would be required to comply with City standards for the on-site retention of storm flows during the 100 -year storm, and would require retention basins and similar facilities. The Revised Project would be subject to the same regulatory requirements, permit coverages, and engineering design approvals as Alternative 2. These would include the most current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs associated with construction and post -construction stormwater management and surface water quality standards; a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to obtain coverage under the State's NPDES Construction General Permit; and the development, approval, and implementation of Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 41 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). As was the case under Alternative 2, the Revised Project would have no need for a deviation from regulatory requirements and associated stormwater controls. As discussed below under the Utilities and Service Systems heading, the Revised Project, like Alternative 2, would require similar water quantities to irrigate the 18 -hole golf course and other recreational amenities; however, this increase in water demand is not expected to interfere with groundwater recharge or substantially decrease groundwater supplies based on the findings in the WSA for the Revised Project, which determined that there are adequate water supplies available for the Revised Project and all other existing and planned future growth. Refer to Appendix D for a copy of the WSA for the Revised Project. Therefore, the Revised Project would not have a significant effect on water supplies or groundwater management efforts. With compliance with regulatory program requirements designed specifically to prevent hydrologic, stormwater and surface water impairments, the impacts resulting from the Revised Project would be the same as Alternative 2 and would be less than significant. Land Use and Planning Preferred Alternative The project site is currently located within the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan (SP 03-067) area. Under SP -03-067, the land use designations for the property includes Low Density Residential, Open Space Recreational, and General Commercial land uses, and the zoning designations for the project include Low Density Residential (RL), Golf Course (GC), and Neighborhood Commercial (CN). The Preferred Alternative proposed changes to the General Plan and Zoning Map consisting of General Commercial, Low Density Residential, Open Space— Recreation, and Tourist Commercial land use designations, and Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Parks and Recreation, and Tourist Commercial zoning designations. The DEIR analyzed the Preferred Alternative's consistency with the various chapters within the La Quinta General Plan, Zoning Code, and the surrounding area. Based on the consistency analysis provided in the DEIR, it was determined that the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the goals and polices within the General Plan, and that the Specific Plan proposed for the Preferred Alternative would result in changes in development standards, however, those changes would not be substantial. Therefore, impacts to land use and planning were determined to be less than significant. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would implement the land uses currently allowed under SP 03-067, would not require a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, and would not result in impacts to land use or planning since the site is currently designated for residential, commercial, and golf uses. Therefore, under Alternative 2, there would be no changes in existing land use conditions, or conflicts with any land Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 42 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO use plan, policy, or regulation. Alternative 2 was determined to have reduced land use and planning impacts as compared to the Preferred Alternative. Revised Project Similar to Alternative 2, the Revised Project would implement the same residential, commercial and golf course land uses allowed under SP -03-067. Although the Revised Project includes minor adjustments to the General Plan land use and zoning maps to coincide with the revised configuration of the residential and golf course layout, these minor map amendments will not amend the land use and zoning designations for the property or introduce any new allowed land uses. Additionally, since the site is currently designated for the same residential, commercial, and golf uses and the Revised Project is not proposing any increases in the densities or intensities of development, it is considered consistent with the existing land use designations and would not result in conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, both the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would have reduced land use and planning related impacts because neither substantially amends the General Plan or zoning to allow Tourist Commercial uses, or modifies the Land Use and Zoning Maps to accommodate a substantially different land use pattern. Impacts associated with land use and planning for the Revised Project is considered to be substantially the same as with Alternative 2, and would be less than significant. Noise Preferred Alternative The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in noise during short-term construction activities, and long-term operational activities. Construction Based on the stages of construction, the noise impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative were expected to create temporarily high noise levels at the nearby receiver locations and onsite locations. However, the DEIR determined that construction noise would not exceed the 85 dBA threshold established by NIOSH (see Table 4.11-15 in DEIR). Therefore, with compliance with the City of La Quinta's established hours of construction set forth in Municipal Code, Section 6.08.050, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Although the impacts were determined to be less than significant, to lessen construction noise, the Preferred Alternative would be required to implement Mitigation Mesasures NOI-1 through N0I-4. These mitigation measures require: the project's compliance with the City's Municipal Code requirements regarding construction activities; construction contractors to equip all construction equipment (fixed or mobile) with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with industry standards; equipment staging areas to be located in areas that will create the greatest Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 43 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receivers; and contractors to design delivery routes to minimize exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck -related noise. These mitigation measures are reproduced below: N0I-1: Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that project construction activities shall comply with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code requirements. N0I-2: During all project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with property operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. N0I-3: The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receivers nearest the project site during all project construction (i.e., to the center). N0I-4: The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck -related noise. The DEIR also analyzed the Preferred Alternative -related vibration during construction. The DEIR determined that vibrational impacts to the closest sensitive receiver to the project would be less than significant because the worst-case construction vibration levels would not exceed the threshold of significance, as shown in Table 4.11-27 of the DEIR. Additionally, onsite construction was not anticipated to significantly impact onsite residents and residential structures since building standards for seismic activity in the area exceed impacts created by vibration of construction activity. Therefore, impacts of construction -related vibration would be less than significant. Operation The analysis of the Preferred Alternative operation in the DEIR concluded that exterior noise levels perceived from the proposed low density residential homes, and the operation of the Wave Basin would experience exterior noise levels exceeding the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards. Thus, Mitigation Measure N0I-5 requires a minimum block wall of 6 feet in height to be developed along the northern and eastern project boundaries to provide an effective noise barrier, as follows: N0I-5: A six-foot perimeter wall will be developed along the northern and eastern property boundaries, adjacent to the proposed Low Density Residential Planning Area (PA II), in order to protect the proposed onsite residential uses from off-site traffic noise. The barriers shall provide a weight of at least four pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line -of -sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways. The barrier must Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 44 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO present a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. The DEIR's analysis of the operation of the Preferred Alternative evaluated the operational noise impacts of the Wave Basin/wave machine activity, outdoor pool/spa activity, outdoor activity, and neighborhood commercial land use activity. These noise level impacts would likely vary throughout the day and will be limited to the daytime and evening hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., established in the DEIR as Mitigation Measure NOI-6, and compliant with the recreational operational hours established by the City of La Quinta: N0I-6: The operation of the Wave Basin and associated Wave machines shall be limited to the daytime and evening hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., compliant with the recreational operational hours allowed by the City of La Quinta. Overall, the DEIR determined that operational noise would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-5 and NOI-6. Alternative 2 The Alternatives analysis in the DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would result in an increase of construction- and operations -related noise onsite and in the surrounding area as compared to existing conditions. (-nn-,tri irtinn Alternative 2 would result in similar levels of development as the Preferred Alternative, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. However, similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would be required to implement Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-4 (outlined above) to lessen construction noise. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would result in periodic vibration from the use of heavy equipment during construction. However, these impacts are considered less than significant because vibrational impacts to the closest sensitive receiver to the project do not exceed the threshold of significance under the Preferred Alternative, as shown in Table 4.11-27 of the DEIR, and Alternative 2 will involve very similar construction equipment. Additionally, onsite construction is not anticipated to significantly impact onsite residents and residential structures since building standards for seismic activity in the area exceed impacts created by vibration of construction activity. Operation The DEIR concluded that operational noise impacts from Alternative 2 would be less than significant since it proposes uses similar to those in the surrounding area, which consist of residential and golf communities. Alternative 2 would not include the operation of a hotel, resort commercial, or Wave Basin. Because these uses would not be present onsite noise levels would be lower under Alternative 2. Additionally, the operation of Alternative 2 could include special events held on the golf course, Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 45 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO but these events are not expected to cause significant noise impacts due to the limited nature of the events and the distance from any off-site sensitive receptors. Under Alternative 2, Mitigation Measure NOI-6 would not be required. Alternative 2 would result in a higher number of vehicle trips on City roadways than the Preferred Alternative, which would marginally increase the levels of noise on these roadways. However, given the capacity and the dispersed nature of the trips, noise levels from these trips would not increase ambient noise levels significantly, and impacts would not be significant. The DEIR concluded that Alternative 2 would result in reduced operational noise impacts as compared to the Preferred Alternative, and neither would result in significant and unavoidable operational noise impacts. Revised Project The Revised Project would result in the development and operation of the site with same uses and densities/intensities as Alternative 2, and therefore, would result in a comparable increase in the noise environment at the project site. Construction Construction of the Revised Project would increase the ambient noise level at and surrounding the site in substantially the same manner as under Alternative 2, since the entire site would be developed. As with Alternative 2, construction activities would be limited to daytime hours by Section 6.08.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Construction would not occur outside of these hours. The impacts of construction noise, as was determined in the DEIR, would be less than significant, however, the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-4 would further lessen such construction noise. The same mitigation measures as those proposed in the DEIR for the Preferred Alternative would be implemented for either Alternative 2 or the Revised Project. With implementation of these mitigation measures implementation of any Alternative would result in less than significant noise impacts during construction at the site. Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, development of the Revised Project would result in periodic vibration during the use of heavy equipment during construction. However, these impacts are considered to be less than significant because the worst-case construction -related vibration levels do not exceed the threshold of significance under the Preferred Alternative, as shown in Table 4.11-27 of the DEIR, and the Revised Project will involve very similar construction equipment. Additionally, onsite construction is not anticipated to significantly impact onsite residents and residential structures since building standards for seismic activity in the area exceed impacts created by vibration of construction activity. Operation Operational noise from the Revised Project would be the same as Alternative 2 and would not be considered significant since the proposed low-density residential, neighborhood commercial and golf Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 46 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO uses are similar to those in the surrounding area, which consist of residential and golf communities, and would not involve operation of the Wave Basin, hotel or other tourist/commercial uses. Similar to Alternative 2, the operation of the Revised Project could include special events on the golf course typical of private country clubs, but these events are not expected to cause significant noise impacts, because they would be restricted to allowable hours established by the City of La Quinta. Under the Revised Project, Mitigation Measure NOI-6 would not be required. Overall, the noise generated by the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would be substantially the same and would be less than significant. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would have reduced operational noise levels due to the removal of the Wave Basin and other resort uses. Although the Revised Project could generate slightly greater roadway noise due to the increase in overall daily trips, these noise levels would be less than significant, like Alternative 2, because of the existing capacity of the roadways and the dispersed nature of the trips. The Revised Project would result in reduced on-site noise levels as compared to the Preferred Project, and impacts would be less than significant. Public Services Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to fire, and police services with the payment of Development Impact Fees (DIF) in place at the time of construction, which is adequate to mitigate any significant impacts from new development. Additionally, the Preferred Alternative would be required to implement all applicable fire safety requirements, to include installation of fire hydrants, and sprinkler systems. The Preferred Alternative would also be required to pay developer fees to the Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) and a Park and Recreation Fee. The Preferred Alternative would not directly or indirectly induce substantial growth. As such, the Preferred Alternative would not result in any substantial adverse physical impacts to existing schools, parks, or other public facilities. Additionally, the Preferred Alternative would not generate an increase in demand that would warrant the expansion or construction of new public facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would introduce residents and uses that would increase demand on the City of La Quinta's public services. There would be an increased demand for police, fire, and emergency services, as well as schools, public facilities, and parks as a result of the development of the proposed 750 low density residential units. However, Alternative 2 would be required to comply with applicable laws and codes imposed by the City and Riverside County Fire Department, and would pay applicable Development Impact Fees. As a result, the DEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 47 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Revised Project The Revised Project would introduce residents and uses that would increase demand on the City of La Quinta's public services consistent with Alternative 2. There would be an increased demand for police, fire, and emergency services, as well as schools, public facilities, and parks as a result of the development of up to 750 residential units. However, the Revised Project would be required to comply with applicable laws and codes imposed by the City and Riverside County Fire Department and pay applicable Development Impact Fees. These requirements and fees are designed to offset the demands of new development, apply to all new development, and would apply to the Revised Project just as they would to Alternative 2. As with Alternative 2, impacts will be less than significant. As compared with the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would result in similar impacts to public services because the Revised Project would develop the 384.5 -acre site and be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) to support fire and police infrastructure, a developer fee to CVUSD to support construction and reconstruction of schools, and a Parks and Recreation fee to support parks within La Quinta. These impacts, however, would be less than significant under either Alternative. Transportation Preferred Alternative The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in a total of 10 impacted intersections under build out (Phase 3) conditions. For the intersection of Madison Street at Avenue 58, addition of project traffic would require the installation of the traffic signal, and therefore, the required signal would be installed by the project as a condition of approval. The project would then be reimbursed all costs beyond the fair share calculation for this improvement. In addition, the Preferred Alternative would also be responsible for the installation of the main access traffic signal at Madison Street, improvements to adjacent roadways, and fair share contributions to offsite improvements pursuant to the transportation component of the City's DIF. Additionally, the project would participate in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program prior to issuance of building permits. For the remaining deficient study intersections, improvements were determined to be needed under both with or without project conditions. The Preferred Alternative was required to contribute to these CIP-programmed improvements on a fair share basis, as shown in Table 1.13-29 of the DEIR, through payment of the City's Development Impact Fees (DIF). With the implementation of the Mitigation Measures described in the DEIR, and the imposition of conditions of approval, impacts associated with compliance with the General Plan transportation policies would be reduced to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures are: TRA -1 The project proponent shall contribute DIF as required by the City of La Quinta. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 48 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO TRA -2 The project proponent shall contribute TUMF traffic impact mitigation fees prior to the issuance of Building Permits. TRA -3 The project proponent shall ensure that streetscape improvement plans for the project frontage on Avenue 58, Madison Street and Avenue 60, are submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the initiation of landscape or roadway improvements. TRA -4 The project proponent shall ensure that clear unobstructed sight distances are provided at all site access points and internal intersections. Sight distances shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of landscape and street improvement plans. TRA -5 The project proponent shall ensure that final layout and site access design are subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to final project approval. TRA -6 The project proponent shall ensure that emergency police, fire and paramedic vehicle access are provided for the project prior to final project approval. TRA -7 The project proponent shall ensure that traffic signing and striping plans shall be developed in conjunction with street improvement plans and submitted to the City of La Quinta for review and approval during the project approval process. TRA -8 The project proponent shall ensure that Construction Traffic Control Plans are reviewed and approved by the City prior to project construction. These plans are to be implemented during construction activities. Construction includes onsite and offsite improvements. TRA -9 If Special Events are to take place prior to the completion of Phase 3 construction, Phase 3 typical operations traffic improvements will be completed or the applicant shall provide a focused traffic analysis with the Temporary Use Permit that identifies any improvements that are not necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at study intersections. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied. TRA -10 If Special Events are to take place prior to the construction of Phase 3, a special event traffic and parking plan will be submitted with each Temporary Use Permit to ensure that special events will not cause any significant traffic or parking impacts. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied. TRA-11Traffic Management Plans will be submitted to the City and the Police Department for review and approval prior to special events. Timing for installation of traffic management measures will be scaled to the size and duration of the event. In general, signage for large events should be in place five days prior and two days following special events. The City and Police Department may impose additional measures if determined to be necessary. Individual management plans for specific special events shall be submitted at least 30 days prior to the start of the event. The special event Traffic Management Plans shall include the measures identified in Mitigation Measures TRA -12 through TRA -14 below. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 49 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO TRA -12 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the project proponent shall include the use of Portable changeable message signs (CMS) or moveable mechanical electronic message boards. CMS will be located at critical locations identified by the La Quinta Police Department (LQPD) and in place 5 days ahead of the event and 2 days after. TRA -13 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan the project proponent shall include the use of law enforcement personnel and/or special event flaggers to direct traffic in locations reviewed and approved by the City and Police Department. TRA -14 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan the project proponent shall include the use of public service announcements (PSA) to provide information to event guests and surrounding neighborhoods prior to the event. Examples include online event information, brochures and changeable message signs that include details such as suggested routes, drop- off and parking facility locations. TRA -15 The project proponent shall ensure that the proposed Coral Mountain Interpretive Center trail designated by the Desert Recreation District Master Plan and associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center is incorporated into project plans. Accommodations for this trail shall be located along the approximate toe of Coral Mountain, within the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property. Likewise, build out of the Preferred Alternative, in conjunction with General Plan (2040) cumulative build out conditions would result in potential impacts, without improvements. However, with the implementation of project and CIP-programmed improvements, cumulative transportation impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Project VMT was determined in the DEIR to be potentially significant, but would be reduced by PDFs, which are enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, and would be anticipated to collectively reduce project home-based VMT by approximately 6% (from 11.64 VMT/resident to 10.94 VMT/resident). With this reduction, the home-based VMT was determined to be less than the City's VMT residential threshold of 12.98 VMT/resident. In addition, implementation of the project was anticipated to result in a reduction in Citywide VMT for service population and would not increase VMT at the regional level. Accordingly, the DEIR found that the Preferred Alternative's VMT impacts were less than significant. To ensure special events at the Wave Basin would not result in any significant hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses, a queuing analysis was performed for the Preferred Alternative to assess the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the project entries. The results are found in Table 4.13-28b of the DEIR. Turn bays on surrounding streets were anticipated to accommodate the estimated 95th Percentile queue length during Weekend Special Events. Accordingly, impacts for the Preferred Alternative were determined to be less than significant, Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 50 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO following implementation of mitigation measures TRA -5 through TRA -7, as well as the review and approval process at the City of La Quinta. In addition, prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department would review the project site plan, and individual sub -area plans as they are brought forward, to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access, consistent with Fire Department and Police Department standards. The Preferred Alternative was determined to have less than significant impacts concerning emergency access. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would have the same short-term construction -related traffic impacts as the Preferred Alternative because the same project site would be developed over a comparable period of time. As with the Preferred Alternative, such impacts would be less than significant because a traffic control plan would be required throughout all construction activities. Alternative 2 was determined in the DEIR to result in an approximately 13% increase in total daily vehicle trips as compared with the Preferred Alternatives, as well as increases in AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 7-2 of the DEIR. As a result, the DEIR concluded that Alternative 2 could potentially result in increased impacts at intersections and necessitate additional improvements at area intersections to mitigate these impacts. These impacts are addressed in TRA -1 and TRA -2, which call for the payment of DIF and TUMF to fund the project's fair share of the necessary area roadway improvements. As is the case with the Preferred Alternative, however, mitigation through the payment of DIF fees and fair share contributions to planned improvements would be expected to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures TRA -9 through TRA -14 do not apply to Alternative 2 as they specifically addressed the special events of the Preferred Alternative. TRA -15 ensure that the proposed Coral Mountain Interpretive Center trail designated by the Desert Recreation District Master Plan (DRDMP) and associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center is incorporated into project plans. This mitigates potential impacts to area trails. Both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 would be required to implement this mitigation. Impacts to area trail plans and the DRDMP will be less than significant. Alternative 2 was also anticipated to have a higher daily VMT and per capita VMT because it would generate more daily trips and lacked the Preferred Alternative's complementary mix of uses on-site and enhanced connectivity between those uses. Alternative 2 was expected to generate 13% more trips compared to the Preferred Alternative. This would result in an overall higher VMT for Alternative 2. Impacts associated with VMT were anticipated to be significant and unavoidable. Overall, Alternative 2 would generate more daily trips on area roadways, resulting in increased VMT impacts and potentially greater LOS impacts, compared to the proposed project. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 51 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO TRA -3 through TRA -7 provide mitigation that addresses appropriate project roadway, adjacent roadway, and access point design, including approved unobstructed sight distances, adequate emergency access, and approved signing and striping plans. These Mitigation Measures would be applied to both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. Following implementation, impacts will be less than significant. Revised Project The Revised Project and Alternative 2 would have substantially the same construction and operational impacts regarding transportation because they both involve construction of the same mix of uses on the same project site at the same density and intensity of development. Short-term construction vehicle trip impacts would result from the development of the residential homes, neighborhood commercial center and golf course. However, these impacts would be limited to permitted construction activity hours per the La Quinta Municipal Code and a Traffic Control Plan would be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all construction activities. Compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that the Revised Project would not have any significant transportation impacts during construction, similar to both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2. As was proposed for the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, primary access to the site will occur at Madison Street, with secondary access from Avenues 58 and 60. These roadways will provide adequate public and emergency access into and out of the project for residents, golf club members, as well as employees, vendors, service providers and public safety equipment and personnel. The Revised Project would have the same operational impacts as Alternative 2 because it would develop the same uses on the same property with the same density and intensity of development. A Supplemental LOS Assessment, which included an update to the trip generation and distribution anticipated for the Revised Project has been completed (see Appendix B). This analysis is based on recent updates to the ITE trip generation tables which occurred with publication of the 111h Edition of the ITE Manual in 2021 (the 101h Edition of the Manual was in effect at the time the DEIR was prepared). As a result of this update, an increase in the total peak hour and daily trips shown in the DEIR for Alternative 2 is forecast, as shown in Table 15 below. It is important to note that should Alternative 2 be studied today, it would show the same increase of 839 trips as the Revised Project because the project components are the same. Notably, Table 15 shows that the increase from the ITE update occurs primarily in the daily trip totals and has little effect on peak hour totals. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 52 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 15 Revised Project and Alternative 2 Trip Generation Comparison Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In I Out I Total In I Out Total Trip Generation Comparison Trip Generation Comparison Revised Project Revised Project -750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 18 Hole Golf Course (ITE 11`h Edition) 189 402 591 505 329 834 8,762 Alternative 2 402 591 505 -750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 18 Hole Golf Course (ITE 10`h Edition) 175 414 589 505 324 829 7,923 Alternative 2 Delta (Revised Project — Alt 2) 14 -12 2 0 5 5 839 Source: ITE Trip Generation 101 Edition and ITE Trip Generation 111" Edition. Table 16 illustrates that the Revised Project would have a higher trip generation than the Preferred Alternative. The increase would amount to 1,768 ADT. Comparatively, if the Preferred Alternative was analyzed today, the numbers would also increase due to revisions in ITE modelling standards. Table 16 Revised Project and Coral Mountain Trip Generation Comparison Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Trip Generation Comparison Revised Project -750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 18 Hole Golf Course (ITE 11`h Edition) 189 402 591 505 329 834 8,762 Preferred Alternative -750 DU Res, 60 TSF Retail, 150 RM Hotel, 12 AC Wave Basin, 15 TSF Village, 16 TSF Farm (ITE 10`h Edition) 143 304 447 383 255 638 6,994 Delta (Revised Project — Coral Mountain Resort) 46 98 144 122 74 196 1,768 Source: ITE Trip Generation 101 Edition and ITE Trip Generation 111 Edition Operation of the Revised Project is shown to have an approximately 11 percent increase in total daily trips as compared to Alternative 2, but this increase is solely due to the revisions to the ITE modelling standards that were refined between 2020 (10th Edition) and 2023 (11th Edition). However, the increase in peak hour totals, which is what drives level of service and intersection/roadway impacts increase by less than 1%. The Supplemental LOS Assessment also analyzed whether the Revised Project would have any new or substantially more severe effects on area roadways and intersections. Ten existing intersections will fall below acceptable LOS levels with implementation of the Revised Project. These are the same existing intersections that would fall below acceptable LOS levels under the Preferred Alternative. The same improvements to these intersections (as well as a traffic signal at the main project entrance and Madison Street) are required to maintain acceptable levels of service for both the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. Impacts associated with study roadway segments were slightly higher for the Revised Project when compared with the Preferred Alternative, however the proposed roadway improvements were Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 53 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO identical, including additional access and turning lanes. With roadway improvements, impacts will be less than significant. Table 17 compares the calculated delay and LOS for the Revised Project with the Preferred Alternative. Impacts associated with the Revised Project would increase slightly at most intersections with some intersections showing reductions in impacts, including the #19 Project Main Access/Madison Street AM Peak Hour. With the same intersection improvements identified in the DEIR, the Revised Project would not result in a significant impact to any intersections. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 54 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 17 Intersection Comparison of Preferred Alternative and Revised Proiect (2026) The applicable Mitigation Measures for both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project are Mitigation Measures TRA -1 through TRA -8 and TRA -15. Following implementation of these Mitigation Measures, regulatory requirements, and conditions of approval, impacts are anticipated to be less than Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 55 January 2024 Preferred Alternative Revised Project # Intersection Traffic Contro 13 Delay (Secs)' AM PM Level of Service' AM PM Delay (Secs)' AM PM Level of Service' AM PM 1 Madison St/Avenue 58 -Without Improvements AWS 41.6 37.8 E E 19.9 >80 C F -With Improvements is 29.9 30.9 C C 27.0 321 C C 2 Madison St/Airport Blvd. TS 10.5 10.8 B B 9.5 10.7 A B 3 Madison St./ Avenue 54 -Without Improvements AWS 45.9 39.3 E E >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 42.6 41.4 D D 423 52.8 D D 4 Madison St./ Avenue 52 TS 32.3 32.0 C C 32A 33A C C 5 Madison St./ Avenue 50 TS 32.5 32.5 C C 323 33.7 C C 6 Jefferson St./ Avenue 54 -Without Improvements AWS >80 >80 F F 57.6 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 21.9 21.8 C C 22.6 22.7 C C 7 Jefferson St./ Avenue 52 -Without Improvements RDB >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements RDB 13.5 13.4 B B 17-5 34.8 C D 8 Jefferson St./ Pomelo TS 29.0 28.9 C C 19.5 35.9 B D 9 Jefferson St./ Avenue 50 -Without Improvements TS 48.1 48.1 D D 532 603 D E -With Improvements TS 47.3 47.3 D D 52.0 51.7 D D 10 Madison St./ Avenue 60 AWS 12.7 13.9 B B 10-5 15A B C 11 Monroe St./Avenue 60 -Without Improvements AWS 47.0 45.2 E E 32.7 >80 D F -With Improvements TS 35.3 35.4 D D 34.8 38.3 C D 12 Monroe St./Avenue 58 -Without Improvements AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 30.2 30.4 C C 26.6 411 C D 13 Monroe St./Airport Blvd -Without Improvements AWS 66.3 66.4 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 22.9 22.8 C C 24.5 263 C C 14 Monroe St./ Avenue 54 -Without Improvements AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 32.6 32.6 C C 352 38.0 D D 15 Monroe St./ Avenue 52 -Without Improvements AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 34.3 34.3 C C 342 453 C D 16 Monroe St./ 501h Avenue TS 20.7 20.7 C C 17.9 26.0 B C 17 Jackson St./ 58th Avenue AWS 14.6 14.6 B B 101 23A B C 18 S. Access/ Avenue 60 CSS 8.9 8.9 A A 9.0 91 A A 19 Madison St/Main Access CSS 30.9 32.2 D D 132 123 B B 20 Project Access 1/Ave. 58 CSS 12.6 12.1 B B 101 111 B B 21 Project Access 2/Ave. 58 CSS 9.9 10.3 A B 9 A 10.0 A A 22 Madison St /Project Access 3 CSS 11.0 11.1 B B 9.7 11.8 A B 23 Madison St/Golf Course S. Access 103 113 B B The applicable Mitigation Measures for both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project are Mitigation Measures TRA -1 through TRA -8 and TRA -15. Following implementation of these Mitigation Measures, regulatory requirements, and conditions of approval, impacts are anticipated to be less than Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 55 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO significant. The following improvements are necessary with the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. Full Improvements: • Madison Street at Project Main Access entrance Traffic Signals: • Madison Street at Avenue 58 • Madison Street at Project Main Access • 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 Lane Improvements: • Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 • Project South Access at Avenue 60 • Project Access 1 at Avenue 58 • Project Access 2 at Avenue 58 • Madison Street at Project Access 3 Roundabout: • Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 — (reconstruction of the current roundabout design) As described in the DEIR, these improvements would be required under all Alternatives, and the appropriate fair share contribution towards these improvements would be calculated based on trip generation impacts to study intersections as illustrated in Table 18. Finally, the Supplemental LOS Assessment identifies the Revised Project's fair share contribution to the need for future intersection improvements throughout the project study area, which are very similar to the Preferred Alternative, with slight increases at most intersections due to the slightly increased peak hour trip generation rate of the Revised Project. The Revised Project will be required to provide fair share mitigation payments toward planned improvements at two additional intersections (#16 and #17). The Revised Project would also construct an additional access point at #23 Madison Street and Golf Course South Access. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 56 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 18 Project Fair Share Contributions Comparison (2026) Intersection # Intersection Preferred Alternative Revised Project 1 Madison Street/Avenue 58 23% 29% 3 Madison Street/Avenue 54 9% 11% 6 Jefferson Street/Avenue 54 4% 5% 7 Jefferson Street/Avenue 52 2% 3% 9 Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 2% 3% 11 Monroe Street/Avenue 60 6% 8% 12 Monroe Street/Avenue 58 11% 14% 13 Monroe Street/Airport Blvd 6% 8% 14 Monroe Street/Avenue 54 5% 6% 15 Monroe Street/Avenue 52 4% 5% 16 Monroe Street/50th Avenue - 4% 17 Jackson Street/581h Avenue - 12% Based on the foregoing comparison, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe effects on intersections and roadways than the Preferred Alternative project, and such impacts associated with compliance with General Plan transportation policies, would be less than significant following the implementation of Mitigation Measures, regulatory requirements and conditions of approval. The Revised Project is anticipated to have slightly higher daily VMT and per capita VMT than Alternative 2 analyzed in the DEIR, due solely to the increased trip generation rates adopted by ITE with its most recent update. It is noted that if Alternative 2 were analyzed today the trip generation data would be identical to the Revised Project because the model inputs (number of homes, square footage of commercial, etc.) would be identical. A Supplemental VMT Assessment was prepared for the Revised Project, which is attached as Appendix C. As compared with the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would have slightly higher daily and per capita VMT because the mix of uses in the Revised Project (and Alternative 2) generate more daily trips. As shown in Table 19, residential home-based VMT would be 13.14 per resident which very slightly exceeds the Citywide home-based VMT of 12.98 per resident which is shown in Table 21. Also as shown in Table 19, the Preferred Alternative would result in a home-based VMT of 11.64, which is slightly below the Citywide home- based VMT, with implementation of on-site Project Design Features that would increase trip capture in the Preferred Alternative. Table 19 Preferred Alternative Baseline and Cumulative Project Residential Home -Based VMT Category 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 Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 57 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 20 Revised Project Baseline and Cumulative Project Residential Home -Based VMT Category Project 2012 Project 2040 Project 2020 (interpolated) Residents 1,875 1,875 1,875 VMT 23,993 26,232 24,632 VMT / Resident 12.80 13.99 13.14 Table 21 Base Year Citywide Home -Based VMT Category City of La Quinta VMT 544,993 Population 42,000 VMT / Resident 12.98 The non-residential VMT also increases slightly with the Revised Project over the previously proposed project. As shown in Table 22, the sub -regional link -level VMT per service population with the Revised Project would be 21.57, as compared to 21.53 VMT per service population attributed to the Preferred Alternative. Table 22 Preferred Alternative and Revised Project Base Year Sub -Regional Link -Level VMT Category Without Project Employment Preferred Alternative With Project Employment Revised Project With Project Employment VMT Interacting with CVAG Area 15,173,739 15,166,580 15,179,349 CVAG Area Population 510,550 510,550 510,550 CVAG Area Employment 193,090 193,764 193,203 VMT /Service Population 21.56 21.53 21.57 This minor increase in VMT for the Revised Project is consistent with the analysis of Alternative 2 in the EIR, which concluded that Alternative 2 would have somewhat greater VMT impacts than the Preferred Alternative due to an increase in trip generation rates and a decrease in the rate of internal capture. As with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project will include design elements that reduce VMT to the maximum extent feasible. Project design will establish residential neighborhoods that are linked through multi -use trails. Community amenities will include activity hubs for the project with open space and trail connections providing easy access to the amenities. The perimeter roadway frontages will provide access for pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians through provision of a multi -use trail as a component of the public street system. The trail network along the primary entry road will connect to the community trail system. The Revised Project shall ensure that the future trail for the Coral Mountain Interpretive Center is incorporated into project plans. Accommodations for this trail shall be located along the approximate Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 58 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO toe of Coral Mountain, within the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property. In addition, the proposed 60,000 SF of commercial uses at the corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street would continue to result in a reduction in VMT by providing resident -serving commercial amenities in the immediate vicinity of project residents and the existing adjacent communities. VMT impacts associated with the Revised Project would however remain significant and unavoidable, as they would under Alternative 2. A queuing analysis was performed for both the Preferred Alternative and for the Revised Project. Less than significant impacts were anticipated relative to hazards due to geometric design feature or incompatible uses for both Projects. Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project is not anticipated to increase hazards due to geometric design feature or incompatible uses, following implementation of the mitigation measures, as well as the review and approval process at the City of La Quinta. Impacts were anticipated be less than significant. Prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department would review the project site plan, and individual sub -area plans as they are brought forward, to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access, consistent with Fire Department and Police Department standards. Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project is not anticipated to result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant relative to inadequate emergency access. Cumulative Impacts Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would be responsible for the Traffic Signal at #19 Madison Street and the Main access and improvements to adjacent roadways in the cumulative 2040 condition. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would be responsible for fair share contributions to offsite improvements pursuant to the transportation component of the City's DIF. Additionally, the project will participate in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program prior to issuance of building permits. Table 23 illustrates the 2040 fair share contribution for 17 area roadway improvements for both the Preferred Alternative and the Revised Project for the 2040 condition. These fair share percentages represent impacts based on 2040 project traffic volumes (GP buildout). The Revised Project will be responsible for slightly higher Fair Share Contributions for a majority of intersections. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 59 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Table 23 Project 2040 Fair Share Contributions Intersection # Intersection Preferred Alternative Revised Project 1 Madison Street/Avenue 58 10% 14% 3 Madison Street/Avenue 54 4% 5% 4 Madison Street/Avenue 52 2% 3% 5 Madison Street/Avenue 50 1% 2% 6 Jefferson Street/Avenue 54 2% 3% 7 Jefferson Street/Avenue 52 2% 2% 9 Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 2% 2% 10 Madison Street/Avenue 60 4% 6% 11 Monroe Street/Avenue 60 2% 4% 12 Monroe Street/Avenue 58 4% 6% 13 Monroe Street/Airport Blvd 2% 3% 14 Monroe Street/Avenue 54 2% 3% 15 Monroe Street/Avenue 52 2% 3% 16 Monroe Street/50th Avenue 1% 2% 17 Jackson Street/58th Avenue 2% 3% Build out of both the Preferred Alternative and the Revised Project, in conjunction with General Plan (2040) build out conditions would result in potential impacts, without improvements. However, with the implementation of the Revised Project and CIP-programmed improvements, cumulative transportation impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels except for impacts associated with VMTs which would be significant and unavoidable. This is consistent with the DEIR determination that Alternative 2 would have less than significant LOS -related impacts with implementation of mitigation, but would have a significant and unavoidable VMT impact. As indicated in the DEIR for Alternative 2, overall VMT impacts of the Revised Project are anticipated to be significant and unavoidable because even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the home-based VMT per capita and the VMT per service population slightly exceed the City's thresholds of significance. However, this impact is the same under both the Revised Project and Alternative 2, and therefore, the Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the DEIR. Tribal Cultural Resources Preferred Alternative During tribal consultation, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) indicated that the area is especially important, and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) requested that their importance be protected, and that the Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex be avoided and preserved, as required by Mitigation Measure TCR -5. Mitigation Measure TCR -6 requires surface collection and Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 60 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO subsurface excavation to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project. The ACBCI determined that, based on their resource inventories, and the breadth and significance of resources identified in and surrounding the project, the area is considered significant to the Tribe, and further surface investigation, testing, and excavation, if necessary, is needed to assure that impacts to Tribal resources in the area are not significant. In order to ensure that the impact is reduced to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures were included in the DEIR: TCR -1: Before ground disturbing activities begin, the applicant shall contact the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office to arrange cultural monitoring. The project requires the presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt in the vicinity of the deposits, and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines), within 24 hours, to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. TCR -2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and provided to the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and activities. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. TCR -3: Before ground disturbing activities, the project's archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI's Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action to approve the plan is taken within 30 days from submission for approval. If the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office rejects two Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site. TCR -4: Before ground disturbing activities, the project's archaeologist shall prepare a Rock Art Management Plan, based on recommendations made in the report by McCarthy and Mouriquand, and shall submit the plan to the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Rock Art Management Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI's Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action is taken to approve the plan within 30 days of submission for Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 61 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO approval. If the ACBCI Historic Preservation Office rejects two Rock Art Management Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Rock Art Management Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site. TCR -5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contain the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project construction through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas; the Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be recorded on the property, and proof of recordation shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III. Nominations of these sites to the National Register of Historic Places shall be filed with the appropriate federal agency prior to the issuance of the first grading permit; and the sites shall be subject to the provisions of the Rock Art Management Plan. TCR -6: For the portion of Site 33-001715 outside the preservation area established in TCR -5, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI. A report of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI's satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. TCR -7: Prior to ground disturbance in Planning Area III, a qualified archaeologist shall complete surface collection, testing and excavation if necessary, for sites 33-1716, 33-1717, 33-8386, 33-9001, 33-9003, 33-28907, 33-28908, 33-28909, 33-28910, 33-28911, 33-28912. A report of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI's satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. TCR -8: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to preserve the information on the adobe building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined bythe project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project's Homeowners Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 62 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre -1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun -colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al.1998:54). TCR -9: The applicant shall coordinate with ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office to ensure there are a sufficient number of Native American monitors for the number of earth -moving machinery for each phase of development. The applicant shall provide the City with fully executed monitoring agreements prior to each phase of ground disturbing activity. TCR -10: Should human remains be inadvertently discovered during ground disturbance, the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 shall be followed. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has examined the remains. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 -hours. TCR -11: Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall sign a curation agreement with the ACBCI THPO. A fully executed copy of the agreement shall be provided to the City. TCR -12: Prior to any ground disturbance, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all contractors with the staff at the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). Mitigation Measure TCR -7 requires a qualified archaeologist to complete surface collection, testing and excavation, if necessary, for the sites. A report of findings including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI's satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. Since the project is located within the ACBCI's Tribal Traditional Use Area and the Tribe's records indicate that Tribal cultural resources are located within the project area, cultural monitoring is required as Mitigation Measure TCR -1. In addition, TCR -2 and TCR -9 require monitoring on the site for all earth moving activities by both archaeological and Tribal monitors. Mitigation Measures TCR -3 and TCR -4 Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 63 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO require the preparation of an Archeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan and a Rock Art Management Plan prior to ground disturbing activities. TCR -5 through TCR -8 mitigates potential disturbance of the sites by implementing the preservation and testing of the site areas. Mitigation Measure TCR -10 implements State law relating to the protection of human remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. To further protect resources that may be uncovered during project development, Mitigation Measure TCR -11 and TCR -12 will require a curation agreement with the ACBCI and construction worker sensitivity training during all aspects and phases of project construction. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the Preferred Alternative was determined to have less than significant impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was determined to have similar impacts to tribal cultural resources as the Preferred Alternative, since both alternatives would disturb the 384.5 -acre site and be required to implement the same Mitigation Measures TCR -1 through TCR -12 to reduce impacts to less than significant levels by avoiding sensitive areas, testing surface and subsurface areas, monitoring during construction, preparing an Archeological Treatment, Deposition, and Monitoring Plan and Rock Art Management Plan, and coordinating with the ACBCI. Revised Project The Revised Project would result in substantially the same impacts to tribal cultural resources as Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative because they involve development of the same project site. The Revised Project would be required to implement the same mitigation measures identified in the DEIR, which would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the Revised Project's impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources would be the same as for Alternative 2, and would be less than significant. Utilities and Service Systems Preferred Alternative The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded off-site wastewater treatment, storm water drainage systems, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. However, the project would be required to construct an offsite pipeline in Avenue 60, in accordance with an existing agreement with Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The infrastructure and design components for the pipeline will be consistent with CVWD requirements and the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and would occur along an existing right-of-way. Therefore, development of the pipeline would not result in significant impacts. In addition, the Preferred Alternative included installation of a new connection and upgrades to the existing IID substation facility at 81600 Avenue 58, which IID identified as necessary to provide Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 64 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO adequate electricity to the site. Impacts relating to these expansions to utility and service systems were determined in the DEIR to be less than significant. Development of the project would result in an overall increase in water demand from the project site during operation. The project -specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA) analyzed the Preferred Alternative's water consumption and whether supply would be available to the Preferred Alternative. Based upon the analysis in the WSA, the estimated total domestic water demand for indoor and outdoor use is approximately 958.63 acre-feet per year (AFY), or 2.49 acre-feet per acre. This quantity is approximately 0.49 -percent of the total project water to be supplied by the CVWD in 2040 (194,300 AFY). With almost 30 million AF of combined storage supplemented by groundwater management planning adopted in the 2015 UWMP and 2010 CVWMP Update, the aquifer was determined to have sufficient available water to supply the project and other present and anticipated needs for normal year, as well as one or more multiple dry years, over the next 20 years (see page 4.15-31 of the DEIR). This was based on the volume of water available in the aquifer, CVWD's Colorado River contract supply, SWP Table A amounts, water rights and water supply contracts, and CVWD's commitment to eliminate overdraft and reduce per capita water use in CVWD's service area. CVWD has committed sufficient resources to further implement the primary elements of the 2010 CVWMP Update and 2015 UWMP, which includes the full utilization of imported water supplies, purchase of additional water supplies, water conservation, and source substitution. Impacts to water supply were concluded to be less than significant. The Preferred Alternative was proposing a new 15 -inch and 12 -inch sewer main that would collect flow from the development and convey it to an existing 15 -inch gravity sewer main at Avenue 58 and 12 -inch sewer main off of Madison Street. Flows would then be delivered to CVWD's Wastewater Reclamation Plant No.4 (WRP-4). WRP-4 has a plant capacity of 9.9 MGD and is located in Thermal. The annual average flow to this facility is approximately 4.75 MGD. The Preferred Alternative was estimated to generate wastewater at 156,839 GPD or 0.157 MDG, which is one percent of the plant's capacity, and which will increase flows by 3.3% over existing volumes. The Preferred Alternative would not cause existing volumes or planned capacity to be exceeded, and was determined to be consistent with the requirements set forth in CVWD's existing agreement to provide sanitary sewer service to the project. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. The Preferred Alternative would consume electricity provided by IID. IID has indicated that additional offsite improvements will be required to meet the Preferred Alternative's power demand. The Preferred Alternative would be required to install twelve, 6 -inch conduits along Avenue 58 to bring additional power to the site and install a transformer bank at IID's existing substation yard located at Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. The offsite improvements for the conduit system will take place in the existing right of way, on both sides of Avenue 58, between Andalusia and PGA West, and on Madison Street, west of Andalusia, and will be installed underground during Phase I of the development. The Preferred Alternative would account for approximately 0.19 percent of IID's total estimated demand Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 65 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO in 2031. The DEIR determined that with the project's connection to the IID substation, it is anticipated that IID's existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the Preferred Alternative's demand. Underground natural gas lines exist adjacent to the project site along Avenue 58 and Madison Street, north and east of the project, respectively. Construction impacts associated with the installation of natural gas connections are expected to be confined to trenching in order to extend them from Madison Street into the Preferred Alternative site. As stated above, the Preferred Alternative is anticipated to consume approximately 21,855,400 kBTU/year, which is approximately 1.47 percent of the City's natural gas consumption at build -out of the City, and approximately 0.0025 percent of the 2030 forecasted consumption in SoCalGas's planning area. The Preferred Alternative would be designed to comply with Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) regarding energy consumption. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded natural gas facilities. The Preferred Alternative would generate 3,674.5 cubic yards of solid waste during the operation of the residential and commercial land uses. The waste generated by the Preferred Alternative would be approximately 0.023 percent of the remaining capacity at Badlands Disposal site, 0.0025 percent of EI Sobrante Landfill's remaining capacity, and 0.019 percent of the remaining capacity of the Lamb Canyon Disposal site, per the DEIR (page 4.15-33). In addition, all future development would be required to comply with mandatory commercial and residential recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. The Preferred Alternative would comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines; and the Preferred Alternative would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to serve the project. Therefore, impacts relative to solid waste were determined to be less than significant. The Preferred Alternative would comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines. All development is required to comply with the mandatory commercial and residential recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. The California Green Building Standards Code (Cal Green) applies to all cities in California, and mandates that all new building construction develop a waste management plan that includes diversion of at least 65% of construction and demolition material from landfills, through recycling and/or reuse. Prior to applying for a permit, the contractor or property owner must submit a Construction & Demolition Debris Management Plan to the City's Environmental Coordinator. There were no impacts relative to applicable solid waste regulations because the project is required to, and would, comply with all such regulations. Alternative 2 The Alternatives analysis in the DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would result in an increased demand for water to irrigate the golf course but would result in decreased demand for electricity and natural gas. Wastewater collection and treatment, solid waste, and telecommunication services would be similar under Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 66 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO As analyzed in the DEIR, Alternative 2 would result in 1,058.54 AFY of water consumption. This is an increase of 99.91 AFY compared to the Preferred Alternative, which would consume 958.63 AFY. The outdoor water consumption for Alternative 2 is 921.14 AFY, as compared to 801.47 AFY for the Preferred Alternative. Additional water lines would also be required, consistent with the Preferred Alternative, to connect to water mains in surrounding streets, but these would not be any greater than the lines required for the Preferred Alternative. The DEIR found that although Alternative 2 would use more water than the Preferred Alternative, neither would have a significant impact because the WSA identifies sufficient water supplies to serve either scenario and other present and anticipated needs for a normal year, as well as one or more multiple dry years, over the next 20 years. Wastewater services required for Alternative 2 would be similar to the Preferred Alternative. The sewage generated by the project would be somewhat reduced when compared to the Preferred Alternative, due to the lack of resort commercial development associated with Alternative 2, so sewage treatment capacity would be sufficient to serve the alternative. Additional sewer lines would also be required, consistent with the Preferred Alternative, to connect to sewer mains in surrounding streets, but these would not be any greater than the lines required for the Preferred Alternative. Burrtec would provide the property with solid waste services. Solid waste generated by Alternative 2 would be somewhat less than the waste generated by the Preferred Alternative, because of the reduction in resort and resort commercial uses on the property. Compared to Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative would generate somewhat greater amounts of solid waste, but impacts would be less than significant. Electricity would be required for construction and operation of Alternative 2. However, it is likely that electricity consumed by Alternative 2 would be somewhat reduced, as compared to the Preferred Alternative, as a result of replacing the resort uses and the Wave Basin included in the Preferred Alternative with single-family homes and a golf course. Given the residential and commercial development generated under Alternative 2, it is likely that the same improvements to the IID substation required under the Preferred Alternative would be required. These improvements will provide power for the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2. Natural Gas, provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), would be required for the operation of Alternative 2. However, the Supplemental Air Quality & GHG Assessment prepared for Revised Project concluded that natural gas consumption would be increased with the development of the 750 single family residential homes, golf course, and commercial space (due to the updates in CalEEMod see Energy discussion for further information). Alternative 2 would be required to connect to existing SoCalGas infrastructure to provide natural gas to the project. Additional natural gas infrastructure is not required for the Preferred Alternative and would not be expected for Alternative 2. The increase of natural gas demand would be less than significant. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 67 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would be required to connect to existing telecommunication services, either by Frontier or Spectrum, to provide telecommunication services to the project site. Additional infrastructure would not be required. The increase of telecommunication demand for the site would be less than significant for both scenarios. Revised Project Similar to Alternative 2, the Revised Project would result in an increased demand for water to irrigate the golf course compared to the Preferred Alternative. The remaining utilities, including wastewater collection and treatment, solid waste, and telecommunication services would be similar under the Revised Project, Alternative 2, and the Preferred Alternative. However, as described below, none of these Alternatives, including the Revised Project, would cause any significant and unavoidable impacts concerning utilities. Water The Revised Project would have substantially the same demand for water as Alternative 2 during both construction and operation, as the same area would be disturbed and developed on the same property with the same mix of residential, golf, and commercial uses. Like Alternative 2, the Revised Project would develop up to 750 homes, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and an 18 -hole golf course. A new WSA has been prepared for the Revised Project and is attached as Appendix D, which takes into account updated information from CVWD regarding water supplies and the Indio Subbasin groundwater management efforts. Per this new WSA, the Revised Project would result in a total water demand of 1,220.74 acre-feet per year (AFY), which is greater than the water demand identified for Alternative 2 in the DEIR (1,058.54 AFY), but would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts because CVWD has adequate water supplies available to serve the Revised Project and all other present and anticipated needs for normal year, as well as one or more multiple dry years, over the next 20 years, as determined by CVWD in the approved WSA for the Revised Project. Table 24 Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 and Revised Project Total Water Demand As described in Section 7 of the WSA for the Revised Project, the water demand for the Revised Project is accounted for in CVWD long-term growth projections, and CVWD has adequate water supplies to serve the project and all other existing uses and planned future demand through 2045 during normal, single -dry -year, and multiple -dry -year conditions. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project (and Alternative 2) would use somewhat more water (approximately 1,220.74 AFY and 1058.54 AFY, respectively, vs. 958 AFY) but Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 68 January 2024 Preferred Alternative Alternative 2 Revised Project Total Water Demand 958.63 AFY 1,058.54 AFY 1,220.74 AFY As described in Section 7 of the WSA for the Revised Project, the water demand for the Revised Project is accounted for in CVWD long-term growth projections, and CVWD has adequate water supplies to serve the project and all other existing uses and planned future demand through 2045 during normal, single -dry -year, and multiple -dry -year conditions. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project (and Alternative 2) would use somewhat more water (approximately 1,220.74 AFY and 1058.54 AFY, respectively, vs. 958 AFY) but Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 68 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO would not exceed available supplies or interfere with CVWD's ongoing groundwater management efforts. Additional water lines would be required to connect to water mains in surrounding streets to serve the Revised Project, but these would not be any greater than the lines required for Alternative 2 or the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, consistent with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would have less than significant impacts related to water use or water supplies. Wastewater Wastewater services required for the Revised Project would be substantially the same as for Alternative 2 analyzed in the EIR. Additional sewer lines would be required to connect to sewer mains in surrounding streets to serve the Revised Project, but these would not be any greater than the lines required for the previously proposed project or Alternative 2 and would result in less than significant impacts. The Revised Project was estimated to generate wastewater at 34,200 GPD or 0.0342 MDG, which is 0.35 percent of the WRP-4's capacity, and which will increase flows by 0.72 percent over existing volumes. The Preferred Alternative was estimated to generate wastewater at 156,839 GPD or 0.157 MDG, which is one percent of the plant's capacity, and which would increase flows by 3.3 percent over existing volumes. The Revised Project would produce less wastewater effluent compared to the Preferred Alternative, due to the removal of the resort uses. The Revised Project, Alternative 2, and the Preferred Alternative would avoid causing existing volumes or planned capacity to be exceeded, and are consistent with the requirements set forth in CVWD's existing agreement to provide sanitary sewer service to the project. Impacts are less than significant. Solid Waste As with the previously proposed project and Alternative 2, Burrtec would provide the Revised Project with solid waste services. Construction waste produced by Revised Project would be the same as under Alternative 2 and, like the Preferred Alternative, would have less than significant impacts. Solid waste generated by Revised Project and Alternative 2 would be somewhat less than the Preferred Alternative because the proposed golf course uses would generate less solid waste than the resort uses. However, under all scenarios, impacts would be less than significant as all Alternatives would be required to comply with all recycling requirements and would not exceed any State or local standards or exceed available landfill capacity. Electricity The electricity required for construction and operation of the Revised Project would be substantially the same as Alternative 2 because both projects propose golf course, residential, and commercial uses on the same project site. As discussed above in the Energy section, the Revised Project would use approximately 8.7% less electricity than required for the Preferred Alternative because the golf course uses require significantly less energy than the Wave Basin and resort uses. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 69 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Like the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would be required to connect to and upgrade an existing IID substation to provide electricity to the project site, including improvements to the existing substation and installing an underground distribution line in existing, disturbed public right-of-way. The electrical demand for the Revised Project would be supported by this proposed infrastructure. Each Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to electricity, and no Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Natural Gas Natural gas, provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), would be required for the operation of the Revised Project in amounts substantially the same as for Alternative 2 because they both involve the same uses, at the same densities and intensities, on the same project site. As discussed above in the Energy section, although the Revised Project is replacing the Wave Basin and resort uses with single-family homes and a golf course, the Revised Project would use approximately 24% more natural gas than the Preferred Alternative, due to the updates to the CalEEMod modeling. The Revised Project would be required to connect to existing SoCalGas infrastructure to provide natural gas to the project site, as would be the case for both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2. Additional natural gas infrastructure is not required for the Revised Project or Alternative 2 and the increase in natural gas demand for all scenarios would be less than significant. Telecommunications Like Alternative 2, the Revised Project would be required to connect to existing infrastructure, either by Frontier or Spectrum, to provide telecommunication services to the site, including internet and cable services. Additional infrastructure would not be required. The increase of telecommunication demand for the Revised Project (and Alternative 2) would also be similar for the Preferred Alternative and would be less than significant for all three scenarios. Summary of Comparative Impacts A summary comparison of impacts associated with the project Alternatives is provided in Table 25, Comparison of Alternatives to Project. As displayed in the table, the first row indicates the proposed project and alternatives, while the following rows indicates the environmental topic and their impacts. The table provides the environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative (as analyzed in the DEIR) and whether Alternative 2 or the Revised Project reduces, increases, or creates similar impacts to the Preferred Alternative. As described in further detail above, the Revised Project would result in substantially the same impacts as Alternative 2 because both include developing the same uses, at the same densities and intensities, on the same project site. The refinements proposed to the boundaries of the golf/open Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 70 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO space and residential areas, and the minor adjustments to the respective acreages, would not alter any of the potentially significant adverse effects identified and analyzed in the DEIR for Alternative 2. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project will not have any new significant adverse environmental effects or substantially more severe environmental effects, other than an increase in VMT that exceeds the City's threshold of significance, as previously disclosed for Alternative 2 in the DEIR. As indicated in the table below, the Revised Project will have similar impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, public services, and tribal cultural resources compared to Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. This is because all scenarios propose the development of the approximately 385 -acre site. Any development that occurs on the site would be required to implement mitigation measures established to reduce impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources that occur or could occur onsite. Because the existing soil conditions at the project site did not exhibit the ideal conditions for development, mitigation measures were established to ensure that the onsite soil creates appropriate foundational conditions for development, which would apply to all three scenarios. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project would be required to implement the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR, and impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and public services at the project site would be less than significant. The Revised Project (and Alternative 2) would have reduced impacts in the areas of aesthetics, as compared to the Preferred Alternative, since the Revised Project does not include the 80 -foot light fixtures for the Wave Basin. However, Alternative 2, the Revised Project, and the Preferred Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to scenic vistas regarding Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains, since any development onsite would obstruct views of these natural landforms. The Revised Project (and Alternative 2) would also reduce impacts to electricity demands, land use and planning, and noise, since the Revised Project will not include the operation of the Wave Basin or resort facilities. Electricity consumed for the Wave Basin and resort facilities resulted in increased electricity use compared to Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. It is expected that the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would result in the same electricity, natural gas, and petroleum demand since they both propose 750 residential homes, 60,000 square feet of commercial, and a golf course. As discussed above, neither the Revised Project nor Alternative 2 would require changes to the land uses or zoning onsite, unlike the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would result in reduced impacts to land use and planning. Finally, noise would be reduced with the development and operation of the Revised Project and Alternative 2 because neither scenario includes the Wave Basin facility or resort component. The Revised Project and Alternative 2 would develop a residential golf community, similar to those in the surrounding area, therefore, noise would be reduced compared to the Preferred Alternative. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 71 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO On the other hand, the Revised Project would have increased effects relating to air quality, energy resources (natural gas demand and petroleum use), GHG emissions, VMT, and water use. As analyzed above, the operation of the 750 residential homes, 60,000 square feet of commercial, and golf course cause an increase in daily vehicle trips compared to the Preferred Alternative. This is because the Preferred Alternative proposed fewer residential units and a mix of various land uses, which reduced VMTs. Alternative 2 and the Revised Project would increase impacts to air quality to significant and unavoidable levels, compared to the Preferred Alternative. GHG emissions and VMT impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. Finally, the addition of the golf course in Alternative 2 and the Revised Project results in an increase in water use compared to the Preferred Project, per the new WSA generated for the Revised Project and approved by CVWD. However, the WSA determined that the local water purveyor has enough water to supply the Revised Project. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. As determined above, the Revised Project and Alternative 2 will result in similar impacts because they both propose the development of 750 residential homes, 60,000 square feet of commercial, and a golf course. The land uses (Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Open Space Recreation) and zoning (Low Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Golf Couse) will remain the same with the Revised Project and Alternative 2. The Revised Project proposes a slight reconfiguration of the land uses to accommodate the golf course design, but the residential density and commercial square footage does not change. Cumulative impacts of Alternative 2 have been analyzed in the La Quinta General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Since the Revised Project proposes the same number of residential homes, commercial square footage, and golf course uses, cumulative impacts generated by the Revised Project would be similar to Alternative 2. Cumulative effects to aesthetics would be similar to the Alternative 2 since they both propose development of the project site and the development proposed is similar to uses in the surrounding area (north, east, and southeast) and has been analyzed in the GP and GP EIR. Cumulative impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to Alternative 2, since all scenarios propose development on the site, however, the site and future projects will be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Additionally, the Revised Project would result in similar impacts to public services compared to Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. These impacts are reduced by the payment of development impact fees. Future projects would be required to pay development impact fees to reduce impacts to public services. Impacts to geology and soils, land use and planning, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality, are site-specific and require some mitigation. Similar to the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative, future projects would be required to comply with local and state regulations, as well as mitigation measures (if necessary) to reduce impacts. Impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy resources, noise, transportation, and utilities would be reduced by local and state regulatory requirements and mitigation measures (if necessary). Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 72 January 2024 CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO Future developments would be required to comply with local and state regulatory requirements and mitigation measures (if necessary) to reduce their impacts to air quality, GHG emissions, energy resources, noise, transportation, and utilities. Overall, the Revised Project, Alternative 2, and the Preferred Alternative would not result in cumulative impacts, as determined in the La Quinta General Plan, General Plan EIR, and in the DEIR. Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 73 January 2024 7.0 ALTERNATIVES Table 25 Comparison of Alternatives and Project Environmental Topic Preferred Alternative Alternative 2 No Project/Existing Entitlements Revised Project0 Aesthetics Significant and Unavoidable Reduced (Significant and Unavoidable) Reduced (Significant and Unavoidable) Air Quality Less than Significant with Increased (Significant and Unavoidable) Increased (Significant and Unavoidable) Mitigation Biological Resources Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation) Mitigation) Cultural Resources Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation) Mitigation) Reduced Electricity; Increased Petroleum Reduced Electricity; Increased Energy Less than Significant Demand and Natural Gas (Less than Petroleum Demand and Natural Gas Significant) (Less than Significant) Geology and Soils Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation) Mitigation) Greenhouse Gas Significant and Unavoidable Increased (Significant and Unavoidable) Increased (Significant and Unavoidable) Hazards and Hazardous Less than Significant Similar (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant) Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant Similar (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant) Land Use and Planning Less than Significant Reduced (No Impact) Reduced (No Impact) Less than Significant with Reduced (operational) (Less than Significant Reduced (operational) (Less than Noise Mitigation with Mitigation) Significant with Mitigation) Public Services Less than Significant Similar (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant) Transportation Less than Significant with Increased (Significant and Unavoidable) Increased (Significant and Unavoidable) Mitigation Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation) Mitigation) Increased Water Demand and Natural Gas; Increased Water Demand and Natural Utilities & Service Systems Less than Significant Reduced Electricity; Similar Others (Less Gas; Reduced Electricity; Similar Others than Significant) (Less than Significant) Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR 74 January 2024 URBAN CROSSROADS DATE: June 19, 2023 TO: Mr. John Gamlin, CM Wave Development LLC FROM: Haseeb Qureshi, Urban Crossroads, Inc. Shannon Wong, Urban Crossroads, Inc. JOB NO: 15455-02 AQ & GHG CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN SUPPLEMENTAL AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT Mr. John Gamlin, Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Supplemental Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment for the Club at Coral Mountain (Project). The Project is located on the southwest corner of re -aligned Madison Street at 58th Avenue in the City of La Quinta. This analysis provides air quality and greenhouse gas information regarding the Alternative 2 "Existing Entitlements" scenario presented in the CORAL MOUNTAIN ALTERNATIVES TRIP GENERATION AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS COMPARISON letter prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (May 2021). PROJECT OVERVIEW The Project does not change existing General Plan land use or zoning designations for the site, consistent with the approved Andaluisa Specific Plan and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310). A Specific Plan Amendment is proposed to adjust the location and layout of open space -recreation and low-density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of existing land use designations. It eliminates prior proposed land uses (no C -T Zone, surf wave basin, or hotel). The Project consists of a commercial corner (60,000 square feet of retail), an 18 -hole golf course, and up to 750 residential units. The preliminary site plan for Project Alternative 2 is shown on Exhibit 1. To ensure that this supplemental assessment is consistent with technical studies prepared for Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310), air quality and greenhouse gas estimates utilize a 2026 Opening Year consistent with the FEIR. Mr. John Gamlin, CM Wave Development LLC June 19, 2023 Page 2 of 4 EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Residential Land Area: ± 193.7 Acres Commercial Land Area: ± 7.7 Acres Golf Course Area : ± 183.0 Acres Total Project Area - ± 384.4 Acres URBAN CROSSROADS 15455-02 AQ & GHG Mr. John Gamlin, CM Wave Development LLC June 19, 2023 Page 3 of 4 AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS The estimated maximum daily operational emissions are summarized in Table 1. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Attachment A. TABLE 1: TOTAL PROJECT REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS 11:744►I:16111► :110-1VI4LTA I&*IIQLP The estimated GHG emissions for the Project land use are summarized in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the Project would generate a total of approximately 14,563.80 MTCO2e/yr. Detailed operation model outputs for the proposed Project are presented in Attachment A. TABLE 2: PROPOSED PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS TOTAL Emissions (lbs/day) Source CO2 VOC NOx CO SOX PM11 PM2.1 0.49 0.57 Summer 11,623.49 Area Source 171.33 0.00 Mobile Source 54.21 45.96 448.99 1.02 33.14 6.40 Area Source 40.02 11.63 49.90 0.07 0.92 0.93 Energy Source 0.40 6.84 2.96 0.04 0.55 0.55 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 94.64 64.43 501.84 1.13 34.62 7.88 Winter Mobile Source 43.20 49.77 314.54 0.90 33.14 6.40 Area Source 35.82 11.20 4.76 0.07 0.91 0.91 Energy Source 0.40 6.84 2.96 0.04 0.55 0.55 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 79.42 67.81 322.26 1.02 34.60 7.86 11:744►I:16111► :110-1VI4LTA I&*IIQLP The estimated GHG emissions for the Project land use are summarized in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the Project would generate a total of approximately 14,563.80 MTCO2e/yr. Detailed operation model outputs for the proposed Project are presented in Attachment A. TABLE 2: PROPOSED PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS TOTAL URBAN ' CROSSROADS 15455-02 AQ & GHG Emission (lbs/day) Source CO2 CH4 N20 R Total CO2e Mobile Source 11,426.34 0.49 0.57 16.12 11,623.49 Area Source 171.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 171.54 Energy Source 2,375.97 0.25 0.02 0.00 2,387.18 Water 107.98 1.15 0.03 0.00 145.20 Waste 67.12 6.71 0.00 0.00 234.83 Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 1.56 Total CO2e (All Sources) 14,563.80 URBAN ' CROSSROADS 15455-02 AQ & GHG Mr. John Gamlin, CM Wave Development LLC June 19, 2023 Page 4 of 4 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS CONCLUSION Results of the assessment indicate that the Alternative 2 "Existing Entitlements" would result in slightly more emissions of VOCs compared to the May 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Air Quality Impact Analysis. Similarly, results of the assessment indicate that the Alternative 2 "Existing Entitlements" would result in slightly more greenhouse gas emissions compared to the May 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Greenhouse Gas Analysis. URBAN ' CROSSROADS 15455-02 AQ & GHG ATTACHMENT A CALEEMOD PROJECT EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS URBAN I CROSSROADS 15455-02 AQ&GHG 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 15455 -Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 1 /32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 4.3.2. Unmitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.2. Unmitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.2. Unmitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 2/32 5. Activity Data 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment 3/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 4/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data 5/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Project Name Operational Year Lead Agency Land Use Scale Analysis Level for Defaults Windspeed (m/s) Precipitation (days) Location County City Air District Air Basin TAZ EDFZ Electric Utility Gas Utility App Version 1.2. Land Use Types Single Family 750 Housing Dwelling Unit 244 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) 2026 Project/site County 3.00 8.80 33.625128, -116.253837 Riverside -Salton Sea La Quinta South Coast AQMD Salton Sea 5696 19 Imperial Irrigation District Southern California Gas 2022.1.1.13 1,462,500 6/32 8,784,643 2,423 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Regional Shopping 60.0 1000sgft 1.38 60,000 0.00 - - - Center Golf Course 18.0 Hole 126 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected 2. Emissions Summary 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summer (Max) Unmit. 64.8 94.6 64.4 502 1.13 2.20 32.4 34.6 2.16 5.72 7.88 472 133,078 133,550 53.3 5.11 325 136,731 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Winter (Max) Unmit. 49.3 79.4 67.8 322 1.02 2.18 32.4 34.6 2.14 5.72 7.86 472 121,491 121,963 53.6 5.24 17.6 124,882 Average - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Daily (Max) Unmit. 38.0 69.8 41.5 275 0.72 1.14 23.1 24.3 1.11 4.08 5.19 472 84,987 85,459 51.9 3.70 107 87,966 Annual- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Max) Unmit. 6.93 12.7 7.58 50.1 0.13 0.21 4.22 4.43 0.20 0.74 0.95 78.2 14,071 14,149 8.59 0.61 17.7 14,564 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 7/32 Daily, - - - - Summer 6.40 - 103,804 103,804 (Max) 4.80 316 105,655 0.07 Mobile 58.2 54.2 46.0 449 Area 5.76 40.0 11.6 49.9 Energy 0.80 0.40 6.84 2.96 Water - - - - Waste - - - - Refrig. - - - - Total 64.8 94.6 64.4 502 Daily, - - - - Winter - - - - (Max) - - 405 0.00 Mobile 47.2 43.2 49.8 315 Area 1.31 35.8 11.2 4.76 Energy 0.80 0.40 6.84 2.96 Water - - - - Waste - - - - Refrig. - - - - Total 49.3 79.4 67.8 322 Average - - - - Daily 92,342 92,342 4.39 4.94 Mobile 34.9 32.1 33.7 249 Area 2.28 37.3 0.98 22.6 Energy 0.80 0.40 6.84 2.96 Water - - - - Waste - - - - Refrig. - - - - 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 1.02 0.72 32.4 33.1 0.68 5.72 6.40 - 103,804 103,804 4.12 4.80 316 105,655 0.07 0.92 - 0.92 0.93 - 0.93 0.00 14,337 14,337 0.27 0.03 - 14,352 0.04 0.55 - 0.55 0.55 - 0.55 - 14,351 14,351 1.48 0.10 - 14,419 - - - - - - - 67.0 585 652 6.94 0.17 - 877 - - - - - - - 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 - 1,418 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 9.42 1.13 - 2.20 - 32.4 - 34.6 - 2.16 - 5.72 - 7.88 - 472 - 133,078 - 133,550 - 53.3 - 5.11 - 325 - 136,731 - 0.90 0.72 32.4 33.1 0.68 5.72 6.40 - 92,342 92,342 4.39 4.94 8.19 93,931 0.07 0.91 - 0.91 0.91 - 0.91 0.00 14,213 14,213 0.27 0.03 - 14,227 0.04 0.55 - 0.55 0.55 - 0.55 - 14,351 14,351 1.48 0.10 - 14,419 - - - - - - - 67.0 585 652 6.94 0.17 - 877 - - - - - - - 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 - 1,418 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 9.42 1.02 - 2.18 - 32.4 - 34.6 - 2.14 - 5.72 - 7.86 - 472 - 121,491 - 121,963 - 53.6 - 5.24 - 17.6 - 124,882 - 0.67 0.51 23.1 23.6 0.48 4.08 4.56 - 69,016 69,016 2.94 3.42 97.3 70,207 0.01 0.07 - 0.07 0.07 - 0.07 0.00 1,035 1,035 0.02 < 0.005 - 1,036 0.04 0.55 - 0.55 0.55 - 0.55 - 14,351 14,351 1.48 0.10 - 14,419 - - - - - - - 67.0 585 652 6.94 0.17 - 877 - - - - - - - 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 - 1,418 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 9.42 8/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Total 38.0 69.8 41.5 275 0.72 1.14 23.1 24.3 1.11 4.08 5.19 472 84,987 85,459 51.9 3.70 107 87,966 Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mobile 6.37 5.86 6.15 45.5 0.12 0.09 4.22 4.31 0.09 0.74 0.83 - 11,426 11,426 0.49 0.57 16.1 11,623 Area 0.42 6.80 0.18 4.12 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 0.00 171 171 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 172 Energy 0.15 0.07 1.25 0.54 0.01 0.10 - 0.10 0.10 - 0.10 - 2,376 2,376 0.25 0.02 - 2,387 Water - - - - - - - 11.1 96.9 108 1.15 0.03 - 145 Waste - - - - - - - 1.85 67.1 0.00 67.1 6.71 0.00 - 235 Refrig. - - - - - - - - Total 58.2 1.56 1.56 Total 6.93 12.7 7.58 50.1 0.13 0.21 4.22 4.43 0.20 0.74 0.95 78.2 14,071 14,149 8.59 0.61 17.7 14,564 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, 55,993 2.14 2.54 171 56,976 42,986 42,986 1.83 2.06 130 43,775 Summer 4,825 0.15 0.20 14.9 4,904 103,804 103,804 4.12 4.80 316 105,655 (Max) Single 29.1 27.0 24.1 238 0.55 0.39 17.5 17.9 0.36 3.09 3.46 - Family Housing Regional 27.3 25.6 20.0 191 0.42 0.30 13.4 13.7 0.28 2.36 2.64 - Shopping Center Golf 1.73 1.56 1.85 19.2 0.05 0.03 1.53 1.56 0.03 0.27 0.30 - Course Total 58.2 54.2 46.0 449 1.02 0.72 32.4 33.1 0.68 5.72 6.40 - 9/32 55,993 55,993 2.14 2.54 171 56,976 42,986 42,986 1.83 2.06 130 43,775 4,825 4,825 0.15 0.20 14.9 4,904 103,804 103,804 4.12 4.80 316 105,655 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Daily, - - - - - - 38,267 1.97 2.11 3.38 38,948 Winter 4,284 0.16 0.21 0.39 4,351 92,342 92,342 4.39 4.94 8.19 93,931 (Max) 7,696 0.32 0.38 10.9 7,827 3,000 3,000 0.14 0.16 4.20 3,054 Single 23.7 21.6 26.2 165 0.49 0.39 17.5 17.9 0.36 3.09 3.46 - Family Housing Regional 22.1 20.3 21.6 137 0.37 0.30 13.4 13.7 0.28 2.36 2.64 - Shopping Center Golf 1.43 1.27 2.02 12.7 0.04 0.03 1.53 1.56 0.03 0.27 0.30 - Course Total 47.2 43.2 49.8 315 0.90 0.72 32.4 33.1 0.68 5.72 6.40 - Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - Single 4.09 3.75 4.07 30.2 0.08 0.06 2.85 2.91 0.06 0.50 0.56 - Family Housing Regional 2.01 1.87 1.73 12.6 0.03 0.02 1.10 1.12 0.02 0.19 0.22 - Shopping Center Golf 0.27 0.24 0.35 2.63 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.28 0.01 0.05 0.05 - Course Total 6.37 5.86 6.15 45.5 0.12 0.09 4.22 4.31 0.09 0.74 0.83 - 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/dav for dailv. ton/vr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/dav for dailv. MT/vr for annual) 49,791 49,791 2.27 2.62 4.43 50,632 38,267 38,267 1.97 2.11 3.38 38,948 4,284 4,284 0.16 0.21 0.39 4,351 92,342 92,342 4.39 4.94 8.19 93,931 7,696 7,696 0.32 0.38 10.9 7,827 3,000 3,000 0.14 0.16 4.20 3,054 730 730 0.03 0.03 1.04 742 11,426 11,426 0.49 0.57 16.1 11,623 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summer (Max) 10/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Single - - - - - - - 5,036 5,036 0.63 0.08 - 5,075 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - 638 638 0.08 0.01 - 643 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,674 5,674 0.71 0.09 - 5,717 Daily, - Winter (Max) Single 5,036 5,036 0.63 0.08 - 5,075 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - - 638 638 0.08 0.01 - 643 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total - - - - - - - - 5,674 5,674 0.71 0.09 - 5,717 Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Single 834 834 0.10 0.01 - 840 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - - 106 106 0.01 < 0.005 - 106 Shopping Center Golf - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total - - - - - - - - - - - - 939 939 0.12 0.01 - 947 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 11 /32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summer (Max) Single 0.79 0.39 6.73 2.87 0.04 0.54 - 0.54 0.54 - 0.54 - 8,548 8,548 0.76 0.02 - 8,572 Family Housing Regional 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 - 129 129 0.01 < 0.005 - 129 Shopping Center Golf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total 0.80 0.40 6.84 2.96 0.04 0.55 - 0.55 0.55 - 0.55 - 8,677 8,677 0.77 0.02 - 8,702 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Winter (Max) Single 0.79 0.39 6.73 2.87 0.04 0.54 - 0.54 0.54 - 0.54 - 8,548 8,548 0.76 0.02 - 8,572 Family Housing Regional 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 - 129 129 0.01 < 0.005 - 129 Shopping Center Golf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total 0.80 0.40 6.84 2.96 0.04 0.55 - 0.55 0.55 - 0.55 - 8,677 8,677 0.77 0.02 - 8,702 Annual- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Single 0.14 0.07 1.23 0.52 0.01 0.10 - 0.10 0.10 - 0.10 - 1,415 1,415 0.13 < 0.005 - 1,419 Family Housing Regional < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 21.4 21.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 21.4 Shopping Center Golf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course 12/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Total 0.15 0.07 1.25 0.54 0.01 0.10 - 0.10 0.10 - 0.10 - 1,437 1,437 0.13 < 0.005 - 1,441 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.2. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summer (Max) Hearths 1.31 0.66 11.2 4.76 0.07 0.91 - 0.91 0.91 - 0.91 0.00 14,213 14,213 0.27 0.03 - 14,227 Consum - 32.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - er Products Architect - 2.58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ural Coatings Landsca 4.45 4.20 0.43 45.1 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.03 - 0.03 - 124 124 0.01 < 0.005 - 125 pe Equipme nt Total 5.76 40.0 11.6 49.9 0.07 0.92 - 0.92 0.93 - 0.93 0.00 14,337 14,337 0.27 0.03 - 14,352 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Winter (Max) Hearths 1.31 0.66 11.2 4.76 0.07 0.91 - 0.91 0.91 - 0.91 0.00 14,213 14,213 0.27 0.03 - 14,227 Consum - 32.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - er Products Architect - 2.58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ural Coatings Total 1.31 35.8 11.2 4.76 0.07 0.91 - 0.91 0.91 - 0.91 0.00 14,213 14,213 0.27 0.03 - 14,227 13/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - Hearths 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 0.00 161 161 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 161 Consum - 5.95 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - er Products Architect - 0.47 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ural Coatings Landsca 0.40 0.38 0.04 4.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 10.2 pe Equipme nt Total 0.42 6.80 0.18 4.12 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 0.00 171 171 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 172 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.2. Unmitigated Daily, Summer (Max) Single - - - - - - - - - - - 58.5 570 629 6.07 0.15 - 825 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - 8.52 15.1 23.7 0.88 0.02 - 51.8 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total - - - - - - - - - - - 67.0 585 652 6.94 0.17 - 877 14/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - Winter (Max) Single - 58.5 570 629 6.07 0.15 - 825 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - 8.52 15.1 23.7 0.88 0.02 - 51.8 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total - - - - - - - - - - - 67.0 585 652 6.94 0.17 - 877 Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Single - - - - - - - - - - - 9.68 94.4 104 1.00 0.03 - 137 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - 1.41 2.51 3.92 0.14 < 0.005 - 8.57 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Course Total - - - - - - - - - - - 11.1 96.9 108 1.15 0.03 - 145 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.2. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/dav for dailv. ton/vr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/dav for dailv. MT/vr for annual) Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summer (Max) 15/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Single - - - - - - - - - 370 0.00 370 37.0 0.00 - 1,295 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - 34.0 0.00 34.0 3.39 0.00 - 119 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - - - 1.29 0.00 1.29 0.13 0.00 - 4.52 Course Total - 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 - 1,418 Daily, - - - Winter (Max) Single - - - - - - - - - - - 370 0.00 370 37.0 0.00 - 1,295 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - 34.0 0.00 34.0 3.39 0.00 - 119 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - - - - - 1.29 0.00 1.29 0.13 0.00 - 4.52 Course Total - - - - - - - - 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 - 1,418 Annual - - - - - Single 61.3 0.00 61.3 6.13 0.00 - 214 Family Housing Regional - - - - - - - - - - - 5.62 0.00 5.62 0.56 0.00 - 19.7 Shopping Center Golf - - - - - - - 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.02 0.00 - 0.75 Course Total - - - - - - - - - - - 67.1 0.00 67.1 6.71 0.00 - 235 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 16/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 4.6.1. Unmitigated Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Summer (Max) Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.37 9.37 Family Housing Regional — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05 Shopping Center Golf — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 Course Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 9.42 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Winter (Max) Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.37 9.37 Family Housing Regional — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05 Shopping Center Golf — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 Course Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 9.42 Annual— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.55 1.55 Family Housing 17/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Regional — — — — — Shopping Center Golf — — — — — — — — — — — Course Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) — — — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — 1.56 1.56 Daily, — — — — — — Summer (Max) Total — — — — — — Daily, — — — — — — Winter (Max) Total — Annual — Total — 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 18/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — Summer (Max) Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Winter (Max) Total— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Annual— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Total— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — — — — — — — — — Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total — — — — — — — — — — Annual — — — — — — — — — — Total — — — — — — — — — — 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 19/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total — — — — — — — — — — — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Summer (Max) Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Winter (Max) Total Annual Total 20/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Summer (Max) Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ered Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — d Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Winter (Max) Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Sequest — — — — — — — — ered Subtotal — — — — Remove — d Subtotal Annual Avoided Subtotal 21 /32 Sequest — — — — Subtotal — — Remove — d Subtotal 5. Activity Data 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Single Family 6,165 7,110 Housing Regional Shopping 2,222 6,969 Center Golf Course 374 358 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces Gas Fireplaces Propane Fireplaces 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 6,360 2,309,668 55,000 63,431 56,740 20,605,336 5,092 1,208,160 13,767 48,325 35,311 7,950,146 340 133,915 5,524 5,288 5,022 1,977,847 0 675 0 22/32 Electric Fireplaces No Fireplaces 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 2961562.5 987,188 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Snow Days Summer Days 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 0 75 90,000 30,000 day/yr 0.00 day/yr 180 Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N20 and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Electricity (kWh/yr) • Single Family Housing 7,004,433 262 0.0330 Regional Shopping Center 887,044 262 0.0330 Golf Course 0.00 262 0.0330 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Single Family Housing 30,505,331 23/32 0.0040 26,673,236 0.0040 402,766 0.0040 0.00 201,482,379 Regional Shopping Center 4,444,351 Golf Course 0.00 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Single Family Housing 687 Regional Shopping Center 63.0 Golf Course 2.40 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Me, Single Family Housing Average room A/C & User Defined 750 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Other residential A/C and heat pumps Single Family Housing Household refrigerators R -134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 and/or freezers Regional Shopping Other commercial A/C User Defined 750 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 Center and heat pumps Regional Shopping Stand-alone retail User Defined 150 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 Center refrigerators and freezers Golf Course Other commercial A/C User Defined 750 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 and heat pumps Golf Course Stand-alone retail User Defined 150 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 refrigerators and freezers 24/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type Fuel Type 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 25/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal -Adapt midcentury 2040-2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. Temperature and Extreme Heat 23.8 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth Wildfire 1.02 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal -Adapt, 2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about 3/4 an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal -Adapt (2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIR005). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft. Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal -Adapt (2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIR005). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 26/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought 0 0 0 N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2 Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought 1 1 1 2 Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. 27/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden Exposure Indicators — AQ -Ozone 88.7 AQ -PM 7.70 AQ -DPM 31.9 Drinking Water 45.4 Lead Risk Housing 0.23 Pesticides 0.00 Toxic Releases 1.99 Traffic 1.51 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 0.00 Groundwater 0.00 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 0.00 Impaired Water Bodies 0.00 Solid Waste 0.00 Sensitive Population — Asthma 30.6 Cardio -vascular 44.1 28/32 to other census tracts in the state. Low Birth Weights Socioeconomic Factor Indicators Education Housing Linguistic Poverty Unemployment 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A Economic Above Poverty Employed Median HI Education Bachelor's or higher High school enrollment Preschool enrollment Transportation Auto Access Active commuting Social 2 -parent households Voting Neighborhood Alcohol availability 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 9.73 8.04 9.46 10.4 86.8 score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions co 95.6242782 0.667265495 96.99730527 86.93699474 100 84.22943667 77.83908636 1.039394328 99.56371102 90.82509945 93.32734505 29/32 to other census tracts in the state. Park access Retail density Supermarket access Tree canopy Housing Homeownership Housing habitability Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden Uncrowded housing Health Outcomes Insured adults Arthritis Asthma ER Admissions High Blood Pressure Cancer (excluding skin) Asthma Coronary Heart Disease Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Diagnosed Diabetes Life Expectancy at Birth Cognitively Disabled Physically Disabled Heart Attack ER Admissions Mental Health Not Good Chronic Kidney Disease Obesity 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 13.6147825 9.29038881 2.399589375 53.34274349 99.40972668 98.58847684 71.07660721 99.08892596 96.93314513 93.18619274 0.0 75.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.3 92.5 95.1 61.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30/32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Pedestrian Injuries 19.6 Physical Health Not Good 0.0 Stroke 0.0 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 0.0 Current Smoker 0.0 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.0 SLR Inundation Area 0.0 Children 97.7 Elderly 0.4 English Speaking 98.1 Foreign -born 10.3 Outdoor Workers 98.2 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 84.8 Traffic Density 1.0 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — Hardship 9.7 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 99.2 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 4.00 31 /32 15455 - Club at Coral Mountain (Operations) Detailed Report, 6/14/2023 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 78.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low -Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Operations: Vehicle Data Operations: Hearths Operations: Architectural Coatings Operations: Refrigerants Trip characteristics based on information provided in the trip generation assessment SCAQMD Rule 445 no wood burning devices. Wood burning devices added to gas devices. SCAQMD Rule 1113 As of 1 January 2022, new commercial refrigeration equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater. Further, R -404A (the CaIEEMod default) is unacceptable for new supermarket and cold storage systems as of 1 January 2019 and 2023, respectively. Beginning 1 January 2025, all new air conditioning equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 750 or greater. 32/32 URBANCROSSROADS 15455-03 Club at Coral Mtn Supplemental LOS Assessment. docx May 26, 2023 Mr. John Gamlin CM Wave Development LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 81301 CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN SUPPLEMENTAL LOS ASSESSMENT Dear Mr. John Gamlin: The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this Supplemental Assessment for the proposed Club at Coral Mountain development ("Project"), which is located on the southwest corner of re -aligned Madison Street at 58th Avenue in the City of La Quinta. This analysis provides traffic level of service (LOS) information regarding the Alternative 2 "Existing Entitlements" scenario presented in the CORAL MOUNTAIN ALTERNATIVES TRIP GENERATION AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS COMPARISON letter prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (May 2021). The Project does not change existing General Plan land use or zoning designations for the site, consistent with the approved Andalusia Specific Plan and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310). A Specific Plan Amendment is proposed to adjust the location and layout of open space -recreation and low density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of existing land use designations. It eliminates prior proposed land uses (no C -T Zone, surf wave basin, or hotel). The Project consists of a commercial corner (60,000 square feet of retail), an 18 -hole golf course, and up to 750 residential units. For this supplemental LOS assessment, information regarding Project traffic flows on adjacent roadways is provided. A VMT assessment has been prepared in a separate document. To ensure that this supplemental assessment is consistent with technical studies prepared for Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310), traffic projections utilize the 2026 and 2040 "without Project" datasets presented in the October 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. PROJECT ACCESS The Project is proposed to be served by the access locations listed below: • Madison Street / Main Access (residential and golf full access) • South Access / Avenue 60 (resident only access) • Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 (commercial corner full access) • Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 (commercial corner right-in/right-out access) 20341 SW Birch Street I Suite 230 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 (949) 660-1994 1 urhanxroads.com CM Wave Development LLC May 26, 2023 Page 2 of 36 • Madison Street / Project Access 3 (commercial corner right-in/right-out access) • Madison Street / Golf Course Service Access (full access, maintenance) To meet the City of La Quinta separation standard between driveways along Avenue 58 and adjacent to the Project commercial corner, Project Access 1 will be located 250 feet east of S. Valley Lane and approximately 280 feet west of Project Access 2. All other proposed Project access locations meet City of La Quinta intersection spacing standards. A preliminary site plan the Project is shown on Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2 depicts the location of the Project in relation to the existing roadway network and overall study area. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Table 1 shows the summary of future intersection operations with and without improvements for the following scenarios: • Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects without the Project for 2026 • Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative Projects (EAPC) for 2026 • General Plan buildout (2040) Without Project Conditions • General Plan buildout (2040) With Project Conditions The project's cumulative impacts at the study area intersections are mitigated to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS "D" or better) with cumulative improvements shown on Exhibit 3. These cumulative improvements are consistent with the October 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. A summary of roadway segment volume -to -capacity analysis is provided on Table 2 for the above scenarios, including General Plan improvements for 2040 conditions. Study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for EAPC 2026 and General Plan buildout (2040) traffic conditions. Avenue 58 shall be constructed to its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary along the commercial portion of the Project. Madison Street shall be constructed to its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary along the commercial and residential portions of the Project. Avenue 60 shall 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 shall not be accommodated at this intersection. URBAN CROSSROADS 2 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN S&'" AVE Club at Coral Mountain Residential Land Area: ± 193.7 Acres Commercial Land Area : ± 7.7 Acres Golf Course Area : ± 1$3.0 Acres Total Project Area : ± 384.4 Acres 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg R7llfEliANCE URBAN I CROSSROADS AVENUE 50 )1 Y N z O w I f- tA z 0 tA CITY OF LA QIIINTA Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 2: STUDY AREA 50TH AV. AVENUE 52 O 0 AIRPORT BL. 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg MAIN ACCESS AREA z O AVENUE 58 0 OU ' o;u aQ w PROJECT1�©• ACCESS SITE Mp�N p00�5 :19 58TH AV. 3q COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE o 0 Y 4 GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA LEGEND: = EXISTING ANALYSIS LOCATION �5 = FUTURE ANALYSIS LOCATION O-Lp = ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATION ---- = FUTURE ROADWAY / DIRT = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS i SITE COGFC IMq ry NC�SSSE.,.. �QO LEGEND: = EXISTING ANALYSIS LOCATION �5 = FUTURE ANALYSIS LOCATION O-Lp = ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATION ---- = FUTURE ROADWAY / DIRT = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS 2026 General Plan Buildout (2040) Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Traffic Delay (Secs)' Level of Service' Delay (Secs)' Level of Service' Traffic Delay (Secs)' Level of Service' Delay (Secs)' Level of Service' # Intersection Control' AM PM AM PM AM PM I AM PM Control' AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. /Avenue 58 AWS 12.7 20.8 B C 19.9 >A C F -With Improvements TS 27.4 32.0 C C 27.0 32.1 C C TS 40.1 63.2 D E 41.7 70.3 D E - With Modified GPCE Improvements TS 34.5 45.5 C D 35.3 54.9 D D 2 Madison St. /Airport Blvd. TS 9.6 10.9 A B 9.5 10.7 _ A B TS 23.2 28.6 C C 23.7 29.7 C C 3 Madison St. /Avenue 54 AWS 79.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 41.2 43.6 D D 42.3 52.8 D D TS 42.9 49.0 D D 44.2 53.3 D D 4 Madison St. /Avenue 52 TS 31.6 32.3 C C 32.4 33.4 C C TS 38.8 52.0 D D 39.5 53.7 D D 5 Madison St. /Avenue 50 TS 31.9 33.4 C _ C 32.3 33.7 C C TS 36.7 53.2 D D 37.6 54.9 D D 6 Jefferson St. /Avenue 54 AWS 40.6 >80 E F 57.6 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 22.7 22.5 C C 22.6 22.7 C C TS 24.0 43.5 C D 24.2 48.4 C D 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 524 RDB >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements RDB 15.1 28.3 C D 17.5 34.8 C D RDB 5.8 8.3 A A 5.9 9.1 A A 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 19.4 35.4 B D 19.5 35.9 B D TS 6.3 21.2 A C 6.4 21.4 A C 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 52.4 58.8 D E 53.2 60.3 D E -With Improvements TS 51.4 51.0 D D 52.0 51.7 D D TS 41.5 52.8 D D 42.3 54.6 D D 10 Madison St. /Avenue 60 AWS 9.4 12.8 A B 10.5 15.4 B C -With Improvements TS 50.9 48.0 D D 49.6 53.1 D D 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 25.9 76.4 D F 32.7 >80 D F -With Improvements TS 33.3 34.9 C C 34.8 38.3 C D TS 45.1 98.8 D F 45.7 >80 D F - With Added GPCE Improvements TS 36.7 50.3 D D 37.2 53.0 D D 12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 52.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 23.2 33.3 C C 26.6 41.1 C D TS 47.8 72.0 D E 50.9 76.4 D E - With Added GPCE Improvements TS 38.0 48.6 D D 39.5 52.2 D D 13 Monroe St. /Airport Blvd. AWS 47.3 >80 E F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 24.0 24.9 C C 24.5 26.3 C C TS 33.3 44.1 C D 34.0 45.4 C D 14 Monroe St. /Avenue 54 AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 34.7 37.0 C D 35.2 38.0 D D TS 31.5 52.5 C D 31.4 54.5 C D 15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 33.7 41.2 C D 34.2 45.3 C D TS 39.0 52.7 D D 39.0 54.3 D D 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 17.7 25.0 B C 17.9 26.0 B C TS 34.5 53.3 C D 34.7 54.5 C D 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 9.5 16.9 A C 10.1 23.4 B C -With Improvements TS 29.7 36.7 C D 30.7 38.0 C D 18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS Future Intersection 9.0 9.1 A A CSS Future Intersection 34.6 34.3 D D 19 Madison St. / Main Access TS Future Intersection _ 13.2 12.3 B B TS Future Intersection 9.6 11.2 A B 20 Project Access 1 /Avenue 58 CSS Future Intersection 10.1 11.1 B B CSS Future Intersection 12.7 14.4 B B 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS Future Intersection _ 9,4 10.0 A A CSS Future Intersection 10.2 10.4 B B 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS Future Intersection 9.7 A A CSS Future Intersection 13.7 14.6 B B 23 Madison St. / Golf Course S. Access CSS Future Intersection _ I 10.3 _11.8 11.3 A B CSS Future Intersection 25.1 32.9 B B ' 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 F.:=RjobsL 15100-155001-154001154551Excel1[15455 - Report.xlsx]l - LOS Summary 0 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 3 (1 OF 2): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS MADISON ST. & 2 MADISON ST. & 3 MADISON ST. & 4 MADISON ST. & 5 MADISON ST. & 6 JEFFERSON ST. & AVENUE 58 AIRPORT BLVD. AVENUE 54 AVENUE 52 AVENUE 50 AVENUE 54 �IIII a ,JI _ _ IIII J l l l LL, J L �- J l L � �► � Z f f � f f f I o DEFT DEF 3 3 z - - - - - - - - - - ----- ----- � - ------------ - - ----- -T - - ---------- — - ---- --- ----- o _ F u `D N SAME AS 2026NO F_ SAME AS 2026 11 SAME AS 2026 NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS ' a = F_ N WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT � IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS 3 = 3 RTO U f__ NO IMPROVEMENTS �i� �ii �iiLL �ii J► a 0 } t 11 t tt� J f 1 (RESTRIPE) t NO IMPROVEMENTS -- F 3 0 F z --- ----- -----------------� ----- --DEFT ------------ ----- - ---� ----- O U ~O U SAME AS 2040 NO SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 3 N WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT O U IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS = F_ O � SAME AS 2040 NO SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 3 o N JEFFERSON ST. & 8 JEFFERSON ST. & 9 JEFFERSON ST. & 10 MADISON & I I MONROE ST. & 12 MONROE ST. & AVENUE 52 POMELO AVENUE 50 AVENUE 60 AVENUE 60 AVENUE 58 a U W J l l l LL, J L �- J l L � �► � Z f f � f f f I o o - 3 z Z - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - 0 u F u `D N SAME AS 2026NO SAME AS 2026 NO SAME AS 2026 SAME AS 2026 W 0 0 N WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS = 3 NO IMPROVEMENTS i zo 111� ----- ----------------� — ---- ------------- --- ----- ----- - ---- 3 z O U u O � SAME AS 2040 NO SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 ' o N WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS = 3 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID = EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL = CITY CIP TRAFFIC SIGNAL = NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL = EXISTING ROUNDABOUT = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT L =EXISTING LANE R. = FREE RIGHT TURN 15455 - 05 - improvements.dwg 6 DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP Rio = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) GO = ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (GPA OPTION 1) = LEFT TURN LANE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE STRIPED MEDIAN =LANE IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) L = ADDITIONAL LANE IMPROVEMENT =PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT R. = FREE RIGHT TURN 15455 - 05 - improvements.dwg 6 DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP Rio = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) GO = ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (GPA OPTION 1) = LEFT TURN LANE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE STRIPED MEDIAN URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 3 (2 OF 2): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 13 MONROE ST. & 14 MONROE ST. & 15 MONROE ST. & 16 MONROE ST. & 17 JACKSON ST. & 18 S. ACCESS & MAIN ACCESS AIRPORT BLVD. AVENUE 54 AVENUE 52 50TH AVENUE 58TH AVENUE AVENUE 60 DEF RTO FUTURE W FUTURE I �♦ I I INTERSECTION INTERSECTION it INTERSECTION z s FUTURE a = O _Ji _71Z M INTERSECTION O N Ei z z - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i ~ O L F 3 z 0 z - - - - - - - - - - ----, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- 0 NO o p F U IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS 2026 SAME AS 2046 SAME AS 2026 NO NO 0 WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS 3 x t- U O FUTURE FUTURE 3 FUTURE NO sro N INTERSECTION INTERSECTION Q INTERSECTION a RTO I z o = o 3 W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - z z O U ~ u O SAME AS 2026 SAME AS 2026 ao WITH PROJECT WITH PROJECT FUTURE INTERSECTION a =o z �l1I� IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS o� (RESTRIPE)Mr 3 z - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U U O SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 SAME AS 2040 T o N WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT a IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS x t- 3 19 MADISON ST. & 20 PROJECT ACCESS 1 & 21 PROJECT ACCESS 2 & 22 MADISON ST. & 23 MADISON ST. & GOLF GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT MAIN ACCESS AVENUE 58 AVENUE 58 PROJECT ACCESS 3 COURSE S. ACCESS =PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT U O FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE �♦ a INTERSECTION INTERSECTION INTERSECTION INTERSECTION z = O 3 Ei z z - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 F U U W � N NO o 11 IMPROVEMENTS a �► i x 3 U O FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE NO a INTERSECTION INTERSECTION INTERSECTION INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS I z = o 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - z z O U ~ u O SAME AS 2026 SAME AS 2026 ao WITH PROJECT WITH PROJECT NO a N IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS 3 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID = EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL = CITY CIP TRAFFIC SIGNAL 0 = NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL = EXISTING ROUNDABOUT = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT L =EXISTING LANE k� = FREE RIGHT TURN 15455 - 05 - improvements.dwg 7 DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP Rio = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) GO = ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (GPA OPTION 1) = LEFT TURN LANE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE STRIPED MEDIAN =LANE IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) L = ADDITIONAL LANE IMPROVEMENT =PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT k� = FREE RIGHT TURN 15455 - 05 - improvements.dwg 7 DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP Rio = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) GO = ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN OVERLAP IMPROVEMENT (GPA OPTION 1) = LEFT TURN LANE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE STRIPED MEDIAN URBAN CROSSROADS TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS Club at Coral Mountain 2026 Potentially GPBO (2040) Without Project With Project Significant # of Without Project With Project Roadway # of Existing Cumulative Lanes 2040 Roadway Segment Designation Lanes' Capacity' ADTz WC ADTz WC Impact3 7 Capacity' ADTz WC ADTz WC West of Madison St. Secondary 3 21,000 4 5,700 0.27 6,300 0.30 No 4 28,000 11,800 0.42 12,500 0.45 Avenue 58 West of Monroe St. Secondary 4 28,000 5,800 0.21 8,300 0.30 No 4 28,000 11,600 0.41 14,000 0.50 West of Jackson St. Secondary 2 14,000 4 4,800 0.34 5,900 0.42 No 4 28,000 17,900 0.64 19,000 0.68 Madison St. South of Airport BI. Primary 4 42,600 14,200 0.33 18,100 0.42 No 4 42,600 30,100 0.71 34,000 0.80 Avenue 60 West of Monroe St. Secondary 3 21,000 4 6,900 0.33 8,500 0.40 No 4 28,000 22,400 0.80 24,000 0.86 Monroe St. South of Airport BI. Primary 3 31,950 5 12,000 0.38 13,400 0.42 No 4 42,600 24,600 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 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 3 A potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is defined to occur on any road segment if the project would cause the existing LOS to fall to worse than LOS D for EAPC (2026) With Project volumes. A potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is also defined to occur if the segment is projected to be operating at LOS E or LOS F with project traffic included and the V/C is increased by 0.02 or more by addition of project traffic. 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Secondary capacity. s Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Primary capacity. 71 = Existing number of lanes; 1 = City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes F.WXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551 Exceh[15455 - Reportxlsx]2 - Roadway Segment Summary Ej CM Wave Development LLC May 26, 2023 Page 9 of 36 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 shall not be accommodated at this intersection. 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 a full access location, serving left and right turns to and from Madison Street. A traffic signal will be warranted at this location with full occupancy of the Project. The northbound left turn lane serving the main Project driveway is recommended to provide 200 feet of vehicle queuing. For South Access & Avenue 60 (intersection 18), provide southbound cross -street stop control and add access control to serve Project residents only. Construct north leg with one shared left -right outbound lane. Construct west leg with one shared left -through lane. Construct east leg with one through lane and a separate westbound right turn lane. The Madison Street / Golf Course Service Access (intersection 23) is located at an existing partially improved driveway labeled Calle Conchita. Existing Madison Street improvements at this location include the median break and northbound left turn lane which accommodate buildout of the Project golf maintenance facility. Exhibit 4 shows Project access and site -adjacent improvements to be constructed in conjunction with development. PROJECT TRIP GENERTION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Trip generation rates are presented on Table 3 for Project buildout conditions based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 11th Edition (2021). ITE trip generation rates for Single Family Detached Residential (Code 210), Golf Course (Code 430), and Shopping Center (Code 821) are used. The Project land uses includes a mix of commercial retail, golf and residential uses, so reasonable assumptions regarding internal/pass-by interactions between these uses are included in the trip generation calculations. Residents and golf 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. As shown on Table 3, the site is anticipated to generate a net total of 8,762 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 591 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 834 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour. The trip distribution patterns for the Project residential and golf components are graphically depicted on Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively. Exhibit 7 shows the trip distribution pattern for the Project commercial corner. 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. URBAN CROSSROADS E URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 4: 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. 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. 58 1.w' W' PROJECT a a a ACCESS 3 Commercial �04FO LEGEND: CONSTRUCT MADISON STREET S MURS A CFSSF TO ITS ULTIMATE HALF SECTION �N WIDTH AS A 4 -LANE SECONDARY P CESS ROADWAY FROM AVENUE 58 TO z 11 M THE SOUTHERLY PROJECT TO THE EASTERLY PROJECT BOUNDARY IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT. I �04FO LEGEND: CONSTRUCT AVENUE 60 ASA S MURS A CFSSF ® = INTERSECTION ID 2 -LANE ROADWAY FROM THE i h11 �'Y': WESTERLY PROJECT BOUNDARY z 11 M i = STOP SIGN TO THE EASTERLY PROJECT =NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOUNDARY IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT. = EXISTING LANE NEAR TERM LANE IMPROVEMENT 0I Lu "I = 2040 LANE IMPROVEMENT LEFT TURN LANE AVENUE 80 ACCOMMODATED WITHIN EXISTING TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE (TWLTL) 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 23 Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access + i h11 �'Y': � t''- z 11 M � �tf � s► 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 10 URBAN CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 3: PROJECT BUILDOUT, EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates' ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Single Family Detached 210 750 DU 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94 9.43 Shopping Center (40-150k) 821 60 TSF 1.07 0.66 1.73 2.54 2.65 5.19 67.52 Golf Course 430 18 HOLES 1.39 0.37 1.76 1.54 1.37 2.91 30.38 Trip Generation Results 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 11 ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Single Family Detached 210 750 DU 135 390 525 443 263 706 7,073 Internal to Retail/Golf Course (5) (11) (16) (28) (27) (55) (662) Residential External Trips 130 379 509 415 236 651 6,411 Shopping Center (40-150k) 821 60 TSF 64 40 104 152 159 311 4,051 Pass -By (25%) (13) (13) (26) (39) (39) (78) (1,013) Internal to Residential/Golf Course (10) (6) (16) (33) (35) (68) (816) Shopping Center External Trips 41 21 62 80 85 165 2,222 Golf Course 430 18 HOLES 25 7 32 28 25 53 547 Internal to Residential/Retail (7) (5) (12) (18) (17) (35) (418) Golf Course External Trips 18 2 20 10 8 18 129 Project Subtotal 224 437 661 623 447 1,070 11,671 Internal Capture Subtotal (22) (22) (44) (79) (79) (158) (1,896) Pass -By (Shopping Center) (13) (13) (26) (39) (39) (78) (1,013) Project Total External Trips 189 402 591 505 329 834 8,762 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF =Thousand Square Feet F.1 UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551Excell[15455 - Report.xlsx]3 - TG 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 11 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 5: PROJECT RESIDENTIAL EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 o u u5 o 50T V. O 5 __ _AVENUE 50 Z W O POMELO D Ln Z Ln AVENUE 52 II�nI NLn z "SEE INSET" N !n / W 1 AVENUE54 ` I is 58TJd Au, 5 30 15 Ln IBL Ln F.CITY OF LA QUINTA r z A POR 5 Club at Coral Mountain ON-SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION tA z O LA0 a AVENUE 58 �N o I 30 as Wn Ou ga.PROJECT ......ACCESS 3 —,i 11 o .o SITE 1 pCyEi'� 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 12 F0 Z W O D Ln Z N II�nI 'n "SEE INSET" / NUE - f I is 58TJd Au, 30 15 10 r z t0 SITE ,, Ln o a--------- 1 S. ACCESS ~�►_T-----AVENUE-6.0 ------------ !160TH' V. LEGEND: \\I 2 -, 2 =r_L 10 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT I = FUTURE ROADWAY 'n T = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 12 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 6: PROJECT GOLF COURSE EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 o u u5 0 5 AVENUE 50 POMELO un z 0 N d' W 4 CITY OF LA QUINTA -� ,T-- MAIN ACCESS AREA �—�T AVENUE 52 5 Ln I AVENUE 54 5 — ~ I1 5 PORT BL. U Club at Coral Mountain 5 W z N Ln NUE 58TM-Au, 35 15 1( U, ' 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 13 GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT = FUTURE ROADWAY (� = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS — I "05 SITE o=� 'Si I r - S. ACCESS- II I ,T-- MAIN ACCESS AREA �—�T AVENUE 52 5 Ln I AVENUE 54 5 — ~ I1 5 PORT BL. U Club at Coral Mountain 5 W z N Ln NUE 58TM-Au, 35 15 1( U, ' 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 13 GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT = FUTURE ROADWAY (� = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 7: PROJECT SHOPPING CENTER EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 14 Club at Coral Mountain ON-SITE OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION N Z C O N_ 25 f AVENUE 58 �- _' 1 --15 u+ W I 15 30 15 _ .0. o �.�.5 20 - as PROJECT ACCE55.3— 20_ IO N SITE Nom\Mp\N A�CE55 1 ON-SITE INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION o � M � Z O N 30 AVENUE 58 10 f 20 25 ou WN 20 a¢ PROJECT -T 1 ACCESS 3 — I SITE VIA ANN Gf 5 `\ LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT = FUTURE ROADWAY = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS CM Wave Development LLC May 26, 2023 Page 15 of 36 Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 8 through 10, respectively. EAPC 2026 CONDITIONS Estimates of Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC 2026) ADT, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 11, 12 and 13, respectively. LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under EAPC 2026 traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with those described in the October 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 4, 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 • Madison Street at Project Main Access • 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 2026 traffic conditions are included in Attachment 1. Table 4 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. Table 5 provides a summary of the EAPC 2026 traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds. As shown on 4, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS under EAPC 2026 traffic conditions. 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 for EAPC 2026 traffic conditions. Queueing analysis worksheets for EAPC 2026 are also provided in Attachment 1. URBAN CROSSROADS 15 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 8: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 0.3 z 0 (ITY OF LA QUINTA 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg Q MAIN ACCESS AREA 0.3 16 Club at Coral Mountain I F Il z 0 0.7 0.6 AVENUE 58 0.7 r 4.4 U �n R Y7 a¢ wd Out o:u as PROJECT 2, ACCESS 3 0.9 1 � SITE N Mp\N pk'cv" \ 0 0.8 GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY --- = FUTURE ROADWAY (% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS / SITC / 02 S. A CfSSsf I i l HOM l / / i i LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY --- = FUTURE ROADWAY (% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 9: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES l SCI J—w / CITY OF LA QUINTA GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA Madison St. & 2 / SITE / ' ® =INTERSECTION ID / i �► i9 / t 1-0� ono G�<F C..... iyq NrF CESSSf / ~45 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT 3-1 1 t ONLY ACCESS I ` 1 1 u 1\� 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 1 Madison St. & 2 LEGEND: Avenue 58 ® =INTERSECTION ID Avenue 50 i �► i9 i �. ;9 t 1-0� ono --- = FUTURE ROADWAY + ~45 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT 3-1 1 t ONLY ACCESS Dy Darn 0-11t(- �- 4 Madison St. & 5 Avenue 52 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 3 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 i �► i9 i �. ;9 t 1-0� ono � } � 24y ONO f109 .� + � f0 Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 ONO f0 OHO f0 OON fp8 0� ��N �� SMO 0� 000 •• �•N► .�0 .► •► - MN X15 1-00�1 -O -ONO�OO�7 ONO�7 O0 0 •J f 0 0 7 i0 ii0i i �► f-7 38-# 19--, ' (' 58-1 '� 0-1 '� } (� 0-1 '� (' 0--1 -1 (' 0-1 57— 39—a-00 508— O.O 00~ or -e 109 OtiO 109— otio 00~ oaorn 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 4--0 Ln Ln Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 1-00 . �. f0 .J � -0 .l � X13 —12 3 } 0� 220- 4- 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 17 v� Ln 10� t I� o I� Ln 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 ONO f109 .� + � f0 ONO f0 .� + 1. f-0 OHO f 9 . i �. �0 0-11t(- 0�-1t1- 0�'�}(� 0� OLO 0� OLO 7� SMO Monroe St. & j 14 Monroe St. & 15 Monroe St. & 1 j 16 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 50th Avenue •• �•N► .�0 .► •► - MN X15 1-00�1 -O -ONO�OO�7 ONO�7 O0 0 •J f 0 0 7 i0 ii0i i �► f-7 38-# 19--, ' (' 58-1 '� 0-1 '� } (� 0-1 '� (' 0--1 -1 (' 0-1 57— 39—a-00 508— O.O 00~ or -e 109 OtiO 109— otio 00~ oaorn 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 4--0 Ln Ln Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 1-00 . �. f0 .J � -0 .l � X13 —12 3 } 0� 220- 4- 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 17 v� Ln 10� t I� o I� Ln URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 10: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES l SCI J -w / CITY OF LA QUINTA 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Club at Coral Mountain GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA r SITE ' r i CotF�o r L r r r I I u � Madison St. & 1 Madison St. & 2 LEGEND: 21 Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 ® =INTERSECTION ID i �. 25 Avenue 60 OM2 0� � } 2 - - — = FUTURE ROADWAY + —16 X128 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 ONLY ACCESS 13-1 1 t . �. f0 0� Mr• 4 Madison St. & 5 Avenue 52 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Club at Coral Mountain GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA r SITE ' r i CotF�o r L r r r I I u � Madison St. & 3 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 21 Project Access 2 & 1� 020 f -Clio 25 i �. 25 Avenue 60 OM2 0� � } 2 Project Access 3 J-- o.Roo f112 68y 10 Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 O.RoO f� Oa0 f� 0' X25�0�0 0-11 f 1- � '1 ? I' 0-11 f f 2 � ^M� 2 � ANO 0� 000 J �► � 0 �NO , 0 ' O ►�o 4--0�7 �8 2 ' 'RN �62 NOO q*,*ROO .1 f-0f-o�f1 T � �fof-oR I► ;21 24-# 12_� 7 f[- 41-1 -1?� 0-17 t r 0-11 f 1- 0--1-1 f 1- 0-11 f r 35� 16� 46 Noo 0 --*41- o-0 0: om 10; o- 10; om 0; oC4 17 Jackson St. & 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & 21 Project Access 2 & Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 Avenue 60 Main Access Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 J-- o.Roo f112 � oRoo f0 1� ovo 12 rn '°"'°^ •� i 1. i0 • i 1► -o i �. �0 '"' . �. f0 [. f0 .� X28 0-1 i 0-11t(- M 0�-1t1- M2 46 C4 Monroe St. & j 14 Monroe St. & 15 Monroe St. & 1 j 16 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 50th Avenue J �► � 0 �NO , 0 ' O ►�o 4--0�7 �8 2 ' 'RN �62 NOO q*,*ROO .1 f-0f-o�f1 T � �fof-oR I► ;21 24-# 12_� 7 f[- 41-1 -1?� 0-17 t r 0-11 f 1- 0--1-1 f 1- 0-11 f r 35� 16� 46 Noo 0 --*41- o-0 0: om 10; o- 10; om 0; oC4 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 Project Access 1 & 21 Project Access 2 & 22 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access Moo f47 oc' X104 rn '°"'°^ f.4 m "'"' '"' . �. f0 [. f0 .� X28 -24 i O9 } �� 207 '8i 1 11 16� 35� t N 1 ao Ln 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 18 URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 11: EAPC (2026) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) e Q AVENUE 50 50TH AV. MAIN ACCESS AREA 17.7 17.7 13.5 POMELO � r o r AVENUE 52 44.3 18.4 14.7 14.0 vi 0 V1 C4 O a w LL AVENUE 54 0.8 15.7 9.8 7.3 ole z^ 0 CITY OF LA QUINTA AIRPORT BL. 4.9 5.9 O Q ae ni Club at Coral Mountain tA tA z 0 tA 6.3 a 6.4 AVENUE 58 6.3 r 8.3 a¢ wd Out as PROJECT 2, ACCESS 3 0.9 M IM SITE �1 Mp\N pk'cv \ "SEEI!l El" 6.2 5g 58TH AV. ------ 8.3- '1 5.9 4.0 COUNTY z SITE='r a OF RIVERSIDE Y W I, S. Access AVENUE 60 160TH AV. — 2.7 1 8.5 j 6.4 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA a j LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY --- = FUTURE ROADWAY (% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 19 SITE / o.C7 �— i 1 ,�gQa IMqCO AfSSsf I ' l HSM i / / M 1 1 1 a j LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY --- = FUTURE ROADWAY (% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 19 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 12: EAPC (2026) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES l SCI J—w / CITY OF LA QUINTA GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA Madison St. & 2 / SITE / ' ® =INTERSECTION ID / -'MLn / M.'o`n74 —81 G�<F C..... iyq NrF CESSSf / 44 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT Madison St. & Avenue 50 j 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 ONLY ACCESS I ` 1 1 u 1\� 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 1 Madison St. & 2 LEGEND: r"°o f-84 Avenue 58 ® =INTERSECTION ID X53 -'MLn --- = FUTURE ROADWAY M.'o`n74 —81 mNm i 1. ± 44 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT Madison St. & Avenue 50 j 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 ONLY ACCESS 75� ^ti^ -1} 1 7: a� 4 Madison St. & 5 Avenue 52 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 3 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 r"°o f-84 oorn X86 tmmco —221 X53 X53 -'MLn X33 19--'o } o' mNm i 1. } , 244OLE 44 mTLn Madison St. & Avenue 50 j 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access .Too 4-4 Ln Ln, 2 Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 11==-102 O° `33 0"^ —161 . - f2 .� . —0 .l X13 —174 41-1 -1 } (- 0-# 276-# 1 t741�; 1 (' 197 (' 132: o om 0— 20--* NN ,oM 7� a M 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 20 Ln ^N 10� t I� 10 Ln N 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Pomelo X72 -'MLn X33 r --"M X488 mNm i 1. 1362 •� i �► i332 i �. X43 � i [. i-4 1 t[ MCI— -1} 1 1 t(- 1 t r 466-' ^inmM 3Lnm 72 —M '0-1 —32 .� 10 86� —30 �. N 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access .Too 4-4 Ln Ln, 2 Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 11==-102 O° `33 0"^ —161 . - f2 .� . —0 .l X13 —174 41-1 -1 } (- 0-# 276-# 1 t741�; 1 (' 197 (' 132: o om 0— 20--* NN ,oM 7� a M 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 20 Ln ^N 10� t I� 10 Ln N 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 Lnr=o X322 .00 X16 -oC')- X232 �C)rj 09 i 1, f 5 � i [. i-4 . i �. f-84 MCI— X36 1 t(- 32� '1 t[- 3 1 f 4-124 322-# —32 .� 10 86� —30 �. —33 .� . ~377 .� �. ~345 �. Monroe St. & j 14 Monroe St. & 15 Monroe St. & 1 j 16 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 50th Avenue 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access .Too 4-4 Ln Ln, 2 Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 11==-102 O° `33 0"^ —161 . - f2 .� . —0 .l X13 —174 41-1 -1 } (- 0-# 276-# 1 t741�; 1 (' 197 (' 132: o om 0— 20--* NN ,oM 7� a M 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 20 Ln ^N 10� t I� 10 Ln N ,or- �C)rj X167 oNM X41 MCI— X36 oM- X52 �-o X138 V21.- 4-124 —32 .� 10 .] 4 [. —30 �. —33 .� . ~377 .� �. ~345 �. -40 74-# 66— 47--' 97 142 7 t (' ^ma M 90-1 133— 62� -1 t �- o,00, rnLnv 0-17 133 19� t r o,mrn ,,,Ln 44-' 202 60� '� � (' do 0 2 -em 106 363— 54� '� � (' ov,� �� 30-J 281 44 1 1' [- ptiM mLnrn 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access .Too 4-4 Ln Ln, 2 Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 11==-102 O° `33 0"^ —161 . - f2 .� . —0 .l X13 —174 41-1 -1 } (- 0-# 276-# 1 t741�; 1 (' 197 (' 132: o om 0— 20--* NN ,oM 7� a M 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 20 Ln ^N 10� t I� 10 Ln N URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 13: EAPC (2026) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES l SCI J—w /I CITY OF LA QUINTA 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA r SITE ' r i CotF�o r L r r r I I u � Madison St. & 1 Madison St. & 2 LEGEND: a Avenue 58 ® =INTERSECTION ID . + �. X566 rnr-- n X77 ,n � - = FUTURE ROADWAY + —115 nm Orrn- Madison St. & Avenue 50 X138 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT 134-1 1 t (' ONLY ACCESS 136 rnNrn 1086-'6 106--* 22: -Ln v 4 Madison St. & 5 Avenue 52 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA r SITE ' r i CotF�o r L r r r I I u � Madison St. & 3 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 a r—.o 4--134 + �► 88 f- . + �. X566 rnr-- n X77 24--1o � •� i ► m m .0 329 510 nm Orrn- Madison St. & Avenue 50 j 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 4-12 C,rno Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 7 oLn 4 2 i �. �0 .J � - —0 .1 i f-28 .� —260 55--' -1 t (- 0-# 203-' 2771 1 (' 274 (' 2106 ^1,— 0� 17� Lncm M 8� NM 16� ti �— 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 21 �ti o 35--� tLn 1� L N 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 r._rna X70 rnr-- n X77 0 X589 •� i ► 1497 •� i �► f--55 7 i �. X34 J i 1. i9 � � � Prnti 'n' 429-# 1 ? (- 62� 1086-'6 106--* —�� 49 4-126 231--' 24- te cm 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 4-12 C,rno Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 7 oLn 4 2 i �. �0 .J � - —0 .1 i f-28 .� —260 55--' -1 t (- 0-# 203-' 2771 1 (' 274 (' 2106 ^1,— 0� 17� Lncm M 8� NM 16� ti �— 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 21 �ti o 35--� tLn 1� L N 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 LntiN X334 coa_N X42 Ngo 4-214 a -°o rnU"r •� i► i31 0 J i 1. i9 . i[- X153 Prnti 'n' 429-# 1 ? (- 62� -1 t � 408-1 1 t 4-126 .J 1. —82 .� � �. —108 f-21 .] 4 1. —167 f-66 � 4 �. 364 --*Nm~ .J 4 �. 21; .] 4 [. 152 --*Mt 4 [. Monroe St. & j 14 Monroe St. & 15 Monroe St. & 1 j 16 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 50th Avenue 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 4-12 C,rno Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 7 oLn 4 2 i �. �0 .J � - —0 .1 i f-28 .� —260 55--' -1 t (- 0-# 203-' 2771 1 (' 274 (' 2106 ^1,— 0� 17� Lncm M 8� NM 16� ti �— 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 21 �ti o 35--� tLn 1� L N .Ln M X179 a -°o rnU"r X131 v --T rnrn X62 Prnti 'n' X66 u,ov vrnrn X66 r-o,'�r °"n- X124 Mmrr -rn^ 4-126 .J 1. —82 .� � �. —108 f-21 .] 4 1. —167 f-66 � 4 �. —121 f-77 .J 4 �. —214 f-38 .] 4 [. —445 f-68 4 [. 424 f-54 54-# 55— 51-#7t(' 175 157 coorn off- 99-1-1tr 180— 62--t o om v 10-11tr 111— 30� Nrn� v 89-#1t(' 291 133 a0, °OLn 116-#-1t(' 444— 92� -ecm Ln 60-11tr 516 58� N ter - 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 4-12 C,rno Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access 7 oLn 4 2 i �. �0 .J � - —0 .1 i f-28 .� —260 55--' -1 t (- 0-# 203-' 2771 1 (' 274 (' 2106 ^1,— 0� 17� Lncm M 8� NM 16� ti �— 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 21 �ti o 35--� tLn 1� L N URBAN CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 22 Without Project With Project Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay Level of Delay Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs) Service (Secs) Service # Intersection Control3 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 19.9 >80 C F -With Improvements TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 1 2 1 27.4 32.0 C C 27.0 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 9.5 10.7 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 42.3 52.8 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 32.4 33.4 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 32.3 33.7 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 57.6 >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 22.6 22.7 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 17.5 34.8 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 35.9 B D 9 Jefferson St. /Avenue 50 - Without Improvements TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 52.4 58.8 D E 53.2 60.3 D E -With Improvements TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 51.4 51.0 D D 52.0 51.7 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 10.5 15.4 B C 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 32.7 >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 34.8 38.3 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 26.6 41.1 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 >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 1 1 0 1! 0 24.0 24.9 C C 24.5 26.3 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 35.2 38.0 D 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 34.2 45.3 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 26.0 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 10.1 23.4 B C 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 22 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS 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 ' 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 E.•1 UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551Excell(15455 - Report.x1sx14 -2026 LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 23 Without Project With Project Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay' Level of Delay' Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs) Service (Secs) Service' # Intersection Contro13 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 9.0 9.1 A A 19 Madison St. / Main Access TS 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Future Intersection 13.2 12.3 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 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 A 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Future Intersection 9.7 11.8 A B 23 Madison St. / Golf Course S. Access CSS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 Future Intersection 10.3 11.3 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 ' 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 E.•1 UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551Excell(15455 - Report.x1sx14 -2026 LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 23 URBAN CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 5: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Through F.1 UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 15400054551Excell[15455 - Report.x1sx]5 -2026 Segment LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 24 Roadway Travel Roadway Segment Designation Lanes' West of Madison Street Secondary 3 Avenue 58 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 Existing Number of Through lanes 0.21 8,300 z Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (Oct 2017) 14,000 4 4,800 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 5,900 0.42 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Secondary capacity. 14,200 0.33 5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Primary capacity. 0.42 21,000 4 F.1 UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 15400054551Excell[15455 - Report.x1sx]5 -2026 Segment LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 24 Without Project With Project Volume/ Volume/ Capacity Capacity Capacityz ADT' Ratio ADT' Ratio 21,000 4 5,700 0.27 6,300 0.30 28,000 5,800 0.21 8,300 0.30 14,000 4 4,800 0.34 5,900 0.42 42,600 14,200 0.33 18,100 0.42 21,000 4 6,900 0.33 8,500 0.40 31,950 ' 12,000 0.38 13,400 0.42 URBAN CROSSROADS TABLE 6: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) CONDITIONS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 25 Club at Coral Mountain Storage 95th Percentile' Length EAPC (2026) (ft.) ID Intersection Movement AM PM Hour Volume 18 S. Access /Avenue 60 76 200 191 154 >150 130 SBL/SBR 95 59 AM 95 19 Madison St. / Main Access 30 >50 22 40 >50 28 NBL 24 56 PM 56 15 EBL 276 203 AM 276 EBR 20 17 AM 20 20 Project Access 1 /Avenue 58 NBL/NBR 9 38 PM 38 WBL 13 28 PM 28 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 NBR 4 17 PM 17 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 EBR 10 35 PM 35 23 Madison St. / Golf Course S. Access NBL 1 1 AM 1 EBL/EBR 2 2 AM 2 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic. Z Existing Storage Length = 100 ; Proposed Storage Length = 100 3 NOM = Nominal, less than 5 feet. RI UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551Excell[15455 - Report.xlsx]1 -LOS Summary 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 25 Club at Coral Mountain Storage 95th Percentile' Length Queue Length (ft.) (ft.) AM PM >300 59 56 150 52 76 200 191 154 >150 130 86 >50 28 55 >50 15 30 >50 22 40 >50 28 46 140 NOM NOM >50 15 13 CM Wave Development LLC May 26, 2023 Page 26 of 36 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT 2040 CONDITIONS Estimates of General Plan buildout with Project 2040 ADT, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 14, 15 and 16, respectively. The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions are consistent with the approved October 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. 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. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions are included in Attachment 2. All intersections are anticipated to experience acceptable operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions with improvements. Table 8 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. As shown on Table 8, 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 13) appears to exceed the theoretical daily segment LOS thresholds. 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 an acceptable level of service. Therefore, roadway segment widening is not anticipated. 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 9 for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) With Project traffic conditions. Queueing analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment 2. 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 development should be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the City's discretion). Table 10 shows the project fair share percentages at cumulatively impacted intersections and CIP funded locations (for EAPC 2026 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. URBAN CROSSROADS 26 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 14: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) r M " AVENUE 5050res ay. MAIN ACCESS AREA 17.9 28.0 OI Q 21.0 POMELO I 1 W \\I 0 M 0 N! I 0 M 0 O H AVENUE 52 S. ACCESS AREA 33.0 30.0 26.0 24.6 z z 0 o a e �o 17.0 C M e N W LA S M W AVENUE 54 0.8 r -?/-31.0 18.0 12.0(A A;l 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg j LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY --- = FUTURE ROADWAY (% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 27 OI Q O I 1 W \\I 0 M GOLF COURSE CITY OF LA QUINTA — S. ACCESS AREA AIRPORT BL — 17.0 19.0 / "SEE I1 o a O / Q % 12.5 SET" 58 58TH AV. °pQ� °URS I g __ 14.0 19.0 10.0 E _ COUNTY Ln o HOS' M . SITE =' OF RIVERSIDE Y N _o SEE INSET" �--- � �1 %yam � N 1 I, S. ACCESS AVENUE 60 60TH AV. ' 22.0 1 24.0 j 15.0 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg j LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) NOM = NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY --- = FUTURE ROADWAY (% = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS 27 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 15: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 POMELO l SCI J—w / CITY OF LA QUINTA GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA Madison St. & 2 / SITE / ' ® =INTERSECTION ID / nN_rn --- = FUTURE ROADWAY ro--138 1 —188 ��' GO[Fc / I "'A SSSS l 322-1 1 t (' ONLY ACCESS 183 Madison St. & Avenue 50 I ` 1 1 u 1\� 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 1 Madison St. & 2 LEGEND: �ti Avenue 58 ® =INTERSECTION ID �. X139 nN_rn --- = FUTURE ROADWAY ro--138 1 —188 ��' i l - 1872 8 =RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT 322-1 1 t (' ONLY ACCESS 183 Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 38:;66 v- 4 Madison St. & 5 Avenue 52 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 3 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 �ti ti^n°oi xMCI In—"_160 T X167 �. X139 nN_rn } � 84--1 } i l - 1872 1183�� a �. f-43 r .] � [. i-4 f-2 36f-9 Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access O.aoen 4--20 Ln "'T Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access .� i I- f--15361 51 .� . —1370 .� 1358 —371 55--1 -1 t [- 1-# 276-# 1 � 543 1 (' 539 (' 539 rn0rn 661 20� N0 4� oM 7� v vo 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 28 M v� v 10� t I� 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 rno_I_ X137 nN_rn X124 ram imm X771 i l - 1872 •� i �► i39 �. f-43 r .] � [. i-4 f-2 36f-9 5,10 � � � 1 ? [- � � � 28— mLn N 86- cmcico NCD '0- N 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access O.aoen 4--20 Ln "'T Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access .� i I- f--15361 51 .� . —1370 .� 1358 —371 55--1 -1 t [- 1-# 276-# 1 � 543 1 (' 539 (' 539 rn0rn 661 20� N0 4� oM 7� v vo 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 28 M v� v 10� t I� 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 X �X r MSM.X385oa rnM"' .m� i 5 r .] � [. i-4 f-2 36f-9 rnMM loa-rll~544 572-# 1 ? [- 31� -1 t [- 347 1 ? 4-130 664 --*Mian ° 2; ^0 81� -0 �. � .1 i 108 .� —71 9 i i �► Monroe St. & 14 Monroe St. & 15 Monroe St. & 1 16 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 50th Avenue 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access O.aoen 4--20 Ln "'T Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access .� i I- f--15361 51 .� . —1370 .� 1358 —371 55--1 -1 t [- 1-# 276-# 1 � 543 1 (' 539 (' 539 rn0rn 661 20� N0 4� oM 7� v vo 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 28 M v� v 10� t I� tiM X272 rnM"' X284 LAMA X104 rnMM loa-rll~544 X235 0_^ Ln X52 N�� X178 (n�N 4-130 .J 1. —672 .J � �. —18 8 � .1 i � ~344 i �. � .1 i 108 .� —71 9 i i �► ~454 � 375-# 411— 150-# 225— 373 7 t (' arna �Ln'^ Nrn 121-# 345— 129 1 t r o m o ^^o�` ^,DN 32-' 391 97 1 t[- aaa ago r- 169-# 480— 217 1 t (' aaN r•Mrn a^ 135-# 601 213 1 t (' r --p^ cn," Nr- 30-' 760 101 1 t [- acor-- r-rno a 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access O.aoen 4--20 Ln "'T Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access .� i I- f--15361 51 .� . —1370 .� 1358 —371 55--1 -1 t [- 1-# 276-# 1 � 543 1 (' 539 (' 539 rn0rn 661 20� N0 4� oM 7� v vo 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 28 M v� v 10� t I� URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain EXHIBIT 16: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 POMELO l SCI J—w / CITY OF LA QUINTA GOLF COURSE S. ACCESS AREA Madison St. & 2 / SITE / ' ® =INTERSECTION ID / 84� - = FUTURE ROADWAY + -269 X138 GO[Fc / I "'A SSSS l 227-1 t2r^N i 1. 1345 0�N i 1. i9 45� aOoN o I ` 1 1 u 1\� 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 1 Madison St. & 2 LEGEND: vv X365 Avenue 58 ® =INTERSECTION ID oma. 84� - = FUTURE ROADWAY + -269 X138 �=RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT x_565 1 t ONLY ACCESS 227-1 t2r^N i 1. 1345 0�N i 1. i9 45� aOoN o 4 Madison St. & 5 Avenue 52 10 Madison & 111 Monroe St. & 112 Monroe St. & 113 Avenue 60 Avenue 60 Avenue 58 Madison St. & 3 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 vv X365 o X470 �. X114 Pomelo � } 2 84� } 1231:; x_565 Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 X224 r~-NUNi X439 '^^�_ X1395 •� i l► 1130 .� i �► X789 X34 639 � � � i95� � � � 231-11 t NM� � N^ 2� N 10 v�M°?�o X324 ° C40 X190 0_° rO- X367 cjl— X206 °_paDr�.r X287 .0 4-132 X300 (m om -418 a^""4 -511 "fir" -491 0,^� -820 MON -1034 V 1124 -699 .� X43 .� i -412 �. X119 .� f-147 .� f-95 f-70 967-# 272-# 7 t (' 150-# 7 t (' 71-17 t (' 215-J I t (- 179 -1 t (' 59-11 t r 790- 576 NQN 512 .60 325- Nr—e 609- rnaao 647- o, -.w972 a� o 583 Nor, 99 r�ro`co 54 0^o` 205 =o`er 266 NMv 209 or-- - �O * ON N 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 0 0 X36 rn rnrn Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access .1 � I- 118 � -1963 .J � f-281 -699 78--1 -1 t (' 1-# 203-# 1 t 550 1 (' 547 (' 628 10oM 1679 17� �0 8� Cm- 16� ti 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 29 Ln r- `0 Mao^ O 35--� t10 1� CG N 7 Jefferson St. & 8 Jefferson St. & 9 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Pomelo Avenue 50 x_565 x_42 4_300 t2r^N i 1. 1345 0�N i 1. i9 NrV„ao . i I- X382 m ? o } - } 547- 22:; 01l L;o°' o ^vN Monroe St. & j 14 Monroe St. & 15 Monroe St. & 1 j 16 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Avenue 54 Avenue 52 50th Avenue 10 v�M°?�o X324 ° C40 X190 0_° rO- X367 cjl— X206 °_paDr�.r X287 .0 4-132 X300 (m om -418 a^""4 -511 "fir" -491 0,^� -820 MON -1034 V 1124 -699 .� X43 .� i -412 �. X119 .� f-147 .� f-95 f-70 967-# 272-# 7 t (' 150-# 7 t (' 71-17 t (' 215-J I t (- 179 -1 t (' 59-11 t r 790- 576 NQN 512 .60 325- Nr—e 609- rnaao 647- o, -.w972 a� o 583 Nor, 99 r�ro`co 54 0^o` 205 =o`er 266 NMv 209 or-- - �O * ON N 17 Jackson St. & 18 S. Access & 19 Madison St. & 20 58th Avenue Avenue 60 Main Access 0 0 X36 rn rnrn Project Access 1 & 121 Project Access 2 & 122 Madison St. & 23 Madison St. & Avenue 58 Avenue 58 Project Access 3 Golf Course S. Access .1 � I- 118 � -1963 .J � f-281 -699 78--1 -1 t (' 1-# 203-# 1 t 550 1 (' 547 (' 628 10oM 1679 17� �0 8� Cm- 16� ti 15455 - 02 - volumes.dwg 29 Ln r- `0 Mao^ O 35--� t10 1� CG N URBAN I CROSSROADS TABLE 7: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS # Intersection 1 Madison St. /Avenue 58 With GPCE Update Improvements With Modified GPCE Improvements 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 524 8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo 9 Jefferson St. /Avenue 50 10 Madison St. /Avenue 60 11 Monroe St. /Avenue 60 With GPCE Update Improvements With Added GPCE Improvements 12 Monroe St. /Avenue 58 With GPCE Update Improvements With Added GPCE Improvements 13 Monroe St. /Airport Blvd. 14 Monroe St. /Avenue 54 15 Monroe St. /Avenue 52 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue 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 23 Madison St. / Golf Course S. Access Club at Coral Mountain Intersection Approach Lanes' DelayZ Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs) Service2 Contro13 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 0 1 2 1> 41.7 70.3 D E TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 g 1 0 1 2 1> 35.3 54.9 D D TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 23.7 29.7 C C TS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1>>1 1 2 1> 44.2 53.3 D D TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 1 39.5 53.7 D D TS 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1> 37.6 54.9 D D TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2> 24.2 48.4 C D 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 TS 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 6.4 21.4 A C TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 42.3 54.6 D D TS 0 1! 0 2 1 1> 2 2 0 1 2 1 49.6 53.1 D D TS 1 2 0 1 2 1 12 1 1 1 1> 45.7 >80 D F TS 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1> 1 2 1> 37.2 53.0 D D TS 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 50.9 76.4 D E TS 2 2 1> 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 39.5 52.2 D D TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 0 1 2 1> 34.0 45.4 C D TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 31.4 54.5 C D TS 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 39.0 54.3 D D TS 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1> 34.7 54.5 C D TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 30.7 38.0 C D CSS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 34.6 34.3 D D TS 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 9.6 11.2 A B CSS 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1* 2 0 12.7 14.4 B B CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 10.2 10.4 B B CSS 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13.7 14.6 B B CSS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 25.1 32.9 D D 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 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 z Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop; AWS = All -Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout 4 Since roundabout analysis in Synchro is limited to a maximum of 2 lanes per approach, traffix has been utilized at this location (similar to the City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout TIA worksheets). RI UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001- 154001154551Exce11[15455 - Report.x1sx]7 - 2040 LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg ac URBAN CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 8: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Through F.I UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551 Excell(15455 - Report.xlsx18 - 204OWP Segment LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 31 Volume/ Capacity Capacity2 Roadway Travel Roadway Segment Designation Lanes' West of Madison Street Secondary 4 Avenue 58 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 West of Jackson Street Secondary 4 Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 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. F.I UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551 Excell(15455 - Report.xlsx18 - 204OWP Segment LOS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 31 Volume/ Capacity Capacity2 ADT' Ratio 28,000 12,500 0.45 28,000 14,000 0.50 28,000 19,000 0.68 42,600 34,000 0.80 28,000 24,000 0.86 42,600 26,000 0.61 URBAN CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 9: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 32 Storage 95th Percentile' Length 2040 WITH PROJECT (ft.) ID Intersection Movement AM PM Hour Volume 18 S. Access /Avenue 60 NOM 150 49 126 200 185 SBL/SBR 96 60 AM 96 30 WEIR 33 104 PM 104 19 Madison St. / Main Access 48 >50 29 50 140 8 NBL 24 56 PM 56 EBL 276 203 AM 276 EBR 20 17 AM 20 20 Project Access 1 /Avenue 58 NBL/NBR 9 38 PM 38 WBL 13 28 PM 28 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 NBR 4 17 PM 17 22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 EBR 10 35 PM 35 23 Madison St. / Golf Course S. Access NBL 1 1 AM 1 EBUR 2 2 AM 2 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic. Z Existing Storage Length= 100 ;Proposed Storage Length= 100 3 NOM = Nominal, less than 5 feet. RI UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551ExceIV15455 - Report.xlsx]9 - Q 2040WP 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 32 Storage 95th Percentile' Length Queue Length (ft.) (ft.) AM PM >300 217 400 150 NOM NOM 150 49 126 200 185 172 >150 108 105 >50 30 51 >50 23 32 >50 18 48 >50 29 50 140 8 NOM >50 8 12 URBAN I CROSSROADS TABLE 10: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 33 Club at Coral Mountain Fair Share (%) 2040 With EAPC (2026)' Project2 29% 14% 28% 2040 11% Project Only EAPC (2026) With Project # Intersection Traffic Peak Hour Traffic Peak Hour Traffic 1 Madison St. /Avenue 58 3% 2% • AM Peak Hour 454 1,559 3,278 • PM Peak Hour 620 2,178 4,748 3 Madison St. /Avenue 54 2% 3% 2% • AM Peak Hour 246 2,220 5,224 • PM Peak Hour 325 2,845 6,689 4 Madison St. /Avenue 52 6% 8% 4% • AM Peak Hour 134 14% 4,335 13% 5% N/A 3% • PM Peak Hour 175 6% 5,458 5 Madison St. /Avenue 50 2% 5% 3% • AM Peak Hour 79 1,985 4,587 • PM Peak Hour 100 2,619 6,416 6 Jefferson St. /Avenue 54 3% • AM Peak Hour 82 1,686 3,135 • PM Peak Hour 109 2,069 3,871 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 • AM Peak Hour 105 3,328 5,049 • PM Peak Hour 134 3,929 6,097 9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 • AM Peak Hour 105 3,643 4,961 • PM Peak Hour 133 4,468 6,167 10 Madison St. /Avenue 60 • AM Peak Hour 165 2,875 N/A • PM Peak Hour 223 3,853 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 • AM Peak Hour 111 1,361 3,094 • PM Peak Hour 150 1,770 4,863 12 Monroe St. /Avenue 58 • AM Peak Hour 191 1,360 3,311 • PM Peak Hour 251 1,973 4,742 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. • AM Peak Hour 105 1,244 3,200 • PM Peak Hour 134 1,687 4,442 14 Monroe St. /Avenue 54 • AM Peak Hour 105 1,765 3,987 • PM Peak Hour 134 2,142 5,384 15 Monroe St. /Avenue 52 • AM Peak Hour 105 2,137 4,174 • PM Peak Hour 134 2,705 5,664 16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue • AM Peak Hour 79 2,086 4,326 • PM Peak Hour 100 2,865 6,017 17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue • AM Peak Hour 82 691 2,601 • PM Peak Hour 1 109 1,020 3,735 1 Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Buildout (2026) Traffic' / "EAPC (2026) Peak Hour Traffic') z Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Buildout (2026) Traffic' / "2040 With Project Peak Hour Traffic') F.. -I UXRjobsl_ 15100-155001_ 154001154551 Excell[15455 - Reportx1sx]10- Fair Share 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 33 Club at Coral Mountain Fair Share (%) 2040 With EAPC (2026)' Project2 29% 14% 28% 13% 11% 5% 11% 5% 3% N/A 3% 2% N/A 2% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 6% N/A 6% 8% 4% 8% 3% 14% 6% 13% 5% 8% 3% 8% 3% 6% 3% 6% 2% 5% 3% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 12% 3% 11% 3% CM Wave Development LLC May 26, 2023 Page 34 of 36 In addition, a summary of study area improvements needed to address intersection operational deficiencies and corresponding funding sources for EAPC 2026 and General Plan Buildout conditions are summarized in Table 11. CONCLUSION The Project evaluated in this supplemental assessment does not change existing General Plan land use or zoning designations for the site, consistent with the approved Andalusia Specific Plan and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310). It consists of a commercial corner (60,000 square feet of retail), an 18 -hole golf course, and up to 750 residential units. EAPC 2026 intersection analysis results indicate that eight off-site study area intersections (as previously identified in the approved October 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis) will require installation of a traffic signal in order to maintain acceptable LOS. In addition, for Jefferson Street at Avenue 50, a second westbound through lane is necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service. EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively impacted intersection (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 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 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 200 feet of vehicle queuing. All intersections are anticipated to experience acceptable operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040), based upon improvements previously indicated in the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis. If you have any questions, please contact John Kain at (949) 375-2435 or Marlie Whiteman (714) 585-0574. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. k4,9okOA-W� 1 John Kain, AICP Principal URBAN CROSSROADS 34 Marlie Whiteman, PE Senior Associate URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (Page 1 of 2) Project Buildout (2026)' 2040 Conditions' Funding ID Intersection Jurisdiction Without Project With Project Source? Without Project With Project 1 None Install TS DIF/CIP' Same Same Madison St. / Avenue 58 City of La Quinta • 2nd EBL, WBR Ovl •Same 3 • Install TS Same DIF/CIP Same Same Madison St. / Avenue 54 City of La Quinta 1 EB free RT Same WBR OVL Same City of La 4 Madison St. /Avenue 52 Quinta/ None None DIF/CIP 1 SBR Same Citvof Indin 5 city of La None None DIF/ CIP 3rd NBT Same Madison St. / Avenue 50 Quinta/ Citv of Indio WBR OVL Same 6 Install TS Same DIF/CIP Same Same Jefferson St. /Avenue 54 City of La Quinta • WBR OVL •Same •Same, 2nd WBR •Same 1 NBL, 1 NBR Same 7 2lane RDB Same DIF/CIP 3lane RDB Same Jefferson St. /Avenue 52 • 2nd NBT •Same •Same, 3rd NBT •Same City of La Quinta • 2nd SBT Same Same, 3rd SBT Same 2nd EBT, 3rd EBT Same 2nd WBT, 3rd WBT Same 9 uty of La 2nd WBT Same La Quinta Same, 2nd WBL Same Jefferson St. /Avenue 50 Quinta/ Citv of Indio CIP 2nd EBL Same 10 None None Install TS Same Madison St. /Avenue 60 1 Shared NB L/T/R Same 2nd SBL, 1 SBT, Same City of La Quinta SBR OVL 2 EBL Same 1 WBL, 2nd WBT Same 11 Monroe St. /Avenue 60 Install TS Same La Quinta Same Same CIP 2nd NBT Same City of La 2nd SBT Same Quinta/ 1 EBL, 2nd EBT, Same County of Riverside EBR OVL 1 WBL, 2nd WBT Same 1 WBR w/OVL 12 Install TS Same DIF/CIP Same Same Monroe St. /Avenue 58 1 NBL, 1 SBL, Same Same Same City of La 1 EBL, 1 WBL Same Same Same Quinta/ 2nd NBL, 2nd NBT, Same County of 1 NBRw/OVL Riverside 2nd SBL, 2nd SBT Same 2nd EBT, 2nd EBR Same 2nd WBT Same 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. City of La Install TS Same DIF/ CIP Same Same Quinta/ 2nd NBT Same County of 2nd EBT Same Riverside 1 WBL, 2nd WBT, Same 1 WBRw/OVL 14 City of La Install TS Same DIF/CIP Same Same Monroe St. /Avenue 54 Quinta/ • 1 NBL, 1 SBL, 1 WBL •Same •Same •Same County of 2nd NBT, 1 NBR Same Riverside 2nd SBT, 1 SBR Same 2nd EBL, 2nd EBT, Same 1 EBR 1 WBL, 2nd WBT, Same 1 WBR 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 35 URBAN I CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (Page 2of2) Project Buildout (2026)' 2040 Conditions' Funding ID Intersection Jurisdiction Without Project With Project Source? Without Project With Project 15 City of La • Install TS • Same DIF / CIP Same Same Monroe St. /Avenue 52 Quinta/ • 2 NBL, 1 NBT, 1 NBR •Same City of Indio/ 2nd SBL Same County of Riverside 2nd EBT Same 2nd WBR Same 16 None None 2nd NBL, 1 NBR Same Monroe St. / 50th Avenue City of Indio 2nd SBL Same 2nd EBT Same 2nd WBT Same 17 None None Install TS Same Jackson St. / 58th Avenue • 1 NBL, 2nd NBT •Same County of 1 SBL, 2nd SBT Same Riverside 1 EBL, 2nd EBT Same 1 WBL, 2nd WBT Same 18 City of La Quinta N/A Install SB CSS Project N/A Same S. Access /Avenue 60 1 shared SBL/R Same 1 shared EBL/T Same 1 shared WBT/R 1 WBT & 1 WBR 19 N/A Install TS Project N/A Install TS Madison St. /Main Access City of La Quinta 1 NBL Same 1 EBL & 1 EBR Same 20 Project Access 1 /Avenue N/A Install NB CSS Project N/A Same 58 City of La Quinta 1 shared NBL/R Same 2nd EBT 21 Project Access 2 /Avenue N/A Install NB CSS Project N/A Same 58 City of La Quinta 1 NBR Same 2nd EBT 22 Madison St. / Project N/A Install EB CSS Project N/A Same Access 3 City of La Quinta 1 shared EBR Same 2nd EBT 1 TS = Traffic Signal; RDB = Roundabout; CSS = Cross -Street Stop Control; OVL = Overlap Phase z The required signal will be installed by the Project, and reimbursement maybe provided for all but the Projects fair share by future developments, or CIP, or DIF. F.WRjobsl-15100-155001-15400t l5455tExcelt[15455 - Report.x&]I l - Imp Summory 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 36 URBAN CROSSROADS ATTACHMENT 1: Club at Coral Mountain EAPC (2026) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 15455-03 Club at Coral Mtn Supplemental LOS Assessment.docx URBAN CROSSROADS This Page Intentionally Left Blank 15455-03 Club at Coral Mtn Supplemental LOS Assessment.docx Club at Coral Mountain Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Future Volume (vph) 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-1 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 19.9 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt tt tt Traffic Vol, veh/h 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Future Vol, veh/h 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 126 80 7 59 86 79 20 497 129 112 387 78 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 3 3 3 3 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 3 3 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 3 3 HCM Control Delay 15.6 13.9 25 18.1 HCM LOS C B C C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 56% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 27% 0% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 44% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 73% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 19 311 277 118 75 7 55 54 101 105 243 LT Vol 19 0 0 118 0 0 55 0 0 105 0 Through Vol 0 311 156 0 75 0 0 54 27 0 243 RT Vol 0 0 121 0 0 7 0 0 74 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 20 331 294 126 80 7 59 57 107 112 258 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.047 0.723 0.617 0.33 0.199 0.017 0.154 0.143 0.253 0.263 0.572 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.357 7.857 7.551 9.467 8.967 8.267 9.475 8.975 8.462 8.482 7.982 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 427 457 477 378 398 431 377 398 422 422 452 Service Time 6.134 5.634 5.328 7.261 6.761 6.061 7.267 6.767 6.254 6.26 5.76 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 0.724 0.616 0.333 0.201 0.016 0.156 0.143 0.254 0.265 0.571 HCM Control Delay 11.5 28.7 21.8 16.9 14 11.2 14 13.3 14.1 14.3 21 HCM Lane LOS B D C C B B B B B B C HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 5.7 4.1 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.5 1 1 3.5 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Future Volume (vph) 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 27.0 34.0 34.0 18.0 25.0 25.0 14.0 42.0 42.0 26.0 54.0 54.0 Total Split (%) 22.5% 28.3% 28.3% 15.0% 20.8% 20.8% 11.7% 35.0% 35.0% 21.7% 45.0% 45.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 06 "R'. 07 i33 i5 :t Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Future Volume (veh/h) 118 75 7 55 81 74 19 467 121 105 364 73 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 199 1.00 1.00 245 1.00 1.00 2114 1.00 1.00 2292 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 325 No 379 195 No 264 137 No 943 311 No 1022 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 126 80 7 59 86 79 20 497 129 112 387 78 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 153 199 168 87 245 109 49 2114 943 138 2292 1022 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.61 0.61 0.08 0.66 0.66 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 126 80 7 59 86 79 20 497 129 112 387 78 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 4.9 0.5 4.0 2.8 6.0 1.4 7.8 4.3 7.6 5.1 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 4.9 0.5 4.0 2.8 6.0 1.4 7.8 4.3 7.6 5.1 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 153 199 168 87 245 109 49 2114 943 138 2292 1022 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.40 0.04 0.68 0.35 0.72 0.41 0.24 0.14 0.81 0.17 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 325 448 379 195 591 264 137 2114 943 311 2292 1022 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.8 49.8 47.8 56.0 53.1 54.6 57.3 10.6 9.9 54.3 7.7 7.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.3 1.3 0.1 8.9 0.9 8.7 5.3 0.3 0.3 10.7 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.1 2.2 0.2 1.9 1.2 2.5 0.7 2.7 1.4 3.6 1.7 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.1 51.1 47.9 64.9 54.0 63.3 62.6 10.9 10.2 65.0 7.9 7.3 LnGrp LOS E D D E D E E B B E A A Approach Vol, veh/h 213 224 646 577 Approach Delay, s/veh 58.7 60.2 12.3 18.9 Approach LOS E E B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 77.8 10.5 17.6 7.9 84.0 15.1 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 37.5 13.5 29.5 9.5 49.5 22.5 20.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 9.6 9.8 6.0 6.9 3.4 7.1 10.6 8.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.6 0.2 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.0 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. UE Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r A tt r tt Traffic Volume (vph) 53 84 1 603 59 128 512 Future Volume (vph) 53 84 1 603 59 128 512 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 140 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 767 818 Travel Time (s) 71.6 10.5 11.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 3 2 Detector Phase 3 3 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 11.5 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 13.0 13.0 12.0 29.0 29.0 18.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 21.7% 21.7% 20.0% 48.3% 48.3% 30.0% 58.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 45 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-5 #1 05 T O's 'R'. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-5 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Movement WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In r A tt r 1543 tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 53 84 1 603 59 128 512 Future Volume (veh/h) 53 84 1 603 59 128 512 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 202 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 0.35 No 0.73 0.23 No Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61 97 693 68 147 589 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 202 180 1962 875 202 2595 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.57 0.57 0.12 0.75 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 3551 1543 1734 3551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 97 693 68 147 589 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1730 1543 1734 1730 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 3.6 6.5 1.2 4.9 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 3.6 6.5 1.2 4.9 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 202 180 1962 875 202 2595 V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.54 0.35 0.08 0.73 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 260 232 1962 875 405 2595 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.3 25.0 7.0 5.9 25.6 2.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 2.5 0.5 0.2 5.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 1.3 1.6 0.3 2.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.1 27.5 7.5 6.1 30.6 2.5 LnGrp LOS C C A A C A Approach Vol, veh/h 158 761 736 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 7.4 8.1 Approach LOS C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 38.0 49.0 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 24.5 30.5 8.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.9 8.5 5.1 5.6 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 4.0 3.6 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.5 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Future Volume (vph) 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 160 150 910 150 160 120 305 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 80 120 120 100 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5080 840 924 2398 Travel Time (s) 63.0 10.4 12.6 32.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-7 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 114 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t 0% Vii tt 0% Vii tt 0% Vii t 0% Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Future Vol, veh/h 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 21 274 462 60 248 97 353 464 56 96 342 22 Number of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Approach EB 411 0 WB 86 0 NB 20 Lane Flow Rate SB 309 211 Opposing Approach WB 183 553 EB 166 179 SB 228 136 NB 8 8 Opposing Lanes 3 8 8 3 8 8 3 8 8 3 Degree of Util (X) 1.081 Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.608 0.07 NB 1.661 0.206 EB 0.578 0.326 WB 0.442 Departure Headway (Hd) Conflicting Lanes Left 3 13.12 12.62 12.243 13.038 12.538 3 Convergence,Y/N Yes 3 Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes Conflicting Approach RighNB Yes Yes SB Yes Cap WB 319 325 EB 314 337 Conflicting Lanes Right 3 288 296 3 291 292 3 9.619 9.119 3 9.738 9.238 HCM Control Delay 253.2 10.82 10.32 28.5 10.123 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 75 0.969 0.649 33.9 0.583 1.641 HCM LOS F 0.576 0.605 D 0.784 0.466 F 111.1 64.6 D 15.6 28.9 Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnlWBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru,% 0% 100% 73% 0% 100% 17% 0% 100% 46% 0% 100% 84% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 27% 0% 0% 83% 0% 0% 54% 0% 0% 16% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 314 275 188 19 163 492 53 147 160 85 203 121 LT Vol 314 0 0 19 0 0 53 0 0 85 0 0 Through Vol 0 275 138 0 163 81 0 147 74 0 203 101 RT Vol 0 0 50 0 0 411 0 0 86 0 0 20 Lane Flow Rate 353 309 211 21 183 553 60 166 179 96 228 136 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 1.081 0.907 0.608 0.07 0.577 1.661 0.206 0.55 0.578 0.326 0.746 0.442 Departure Headway (Hd) 11.91911.41911.23212.03811.53810.953 13.12 12.62 12.243 13.038 12.538 12.423 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 307 319 325 299 314 337 275 288 296 278 291 292 Service Time 9.619 9.119 8.932 9.738 9.238 8.653 10.82 10.32 9.943 10.738 10.238 10.123 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.15 0.969 0.649 0.07 0.583 1.641 0.218 0.576 0.605 0.345 0.784 0.466 HCM Control Delay 111.1 64.6 29.9 15.6 28.9 336.5 19.2 29.7 30.4 21.9 44.5 24.6 HCM Lane LOS F F D C D F C D D C E C HCM 95th -tile Q 12.7 8.7 3.8 0.2 3.4 33.3 0.8 3.1 3.4 1.4 5.5 2.1 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn 11 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Future Volume (vph) 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 160 150 910 150 160 120 305 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 80 120 120 100 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5080 840 924 2398 Travel Time (s) 63.0 10.4 12.6 32.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 13.0 42.0 17.0 46.0 46.0 29.0 40.0 40.0 21.0 32.0 Total Split (%) 10.8% 35.0% 14.2% 38.3% 38.3% 24.2% 33.3% 33.3% 17.5% 26.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 1 102 'R) 05 06 'R'- _ 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1543 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1734 t 1783 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 19 244 411 53 221 86 314 413 50 85 304 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 539 1.00 1.00 1151 1.00 1.00 1449 1.00 1.00 626 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 123 No 482 181 No 534 687 No 646 238 No 645 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 21 274 462 60 248 97 353 464 56 96 342 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 51 539 481 87 1151 513 425 1449 646 120 1194 76 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.07 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1730 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 1734 3302 211 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 21 274 462 60 248 97 353 464 56 96 179 185 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1734 1730 1783 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 15.5 35.3 4.1 6.2 5.4 12.3 10.8 2.6 6.5 8.8 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 15.5 35.3 4.1 6.2 5.4 12.3 10.8 2.6 6.5 8.8 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 51 539 481 87 1151 513 425 1449 646 120 626 645 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.51 0.96 0.69 0.22 0.19 0.83 0.32 0.09 0.80 0.29 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 123 541 482 181 1197 534 687 1449 646 238 626 645 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.2 33.8 40.6 56.0 28.8 28.5 51.2 23.4 21.0 55.0 27.3 27.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.8 0.7 29.3 9.1 0.1 0.2 4.7 0.6 0.3 11.5 1.1 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 6.3 16.4 1.9 2.4 1.9 5.3 4.3 0.9 3.2 3.7 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.0 34.5 69.9 65.2 28.9 28.7 55.8 24.0 21.3 66.5 28.4 28.4 LnGrp LOS E C E E C C E C C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 757 405 873 460 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.8 34.2 36.7 36.4 Approach LOS E C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 54.8 10.6 41.9 19.7 47.9 8.0 44.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 35.5 12.5 37.5 24.5 27.5 8.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 8.5 12.8 6.1 37.3 14.3 10.9 3.4 8.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.9 1.6 0.0 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.3 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 -11 � � t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 73 466 66 36 422 72 149 355 34 63 291 63 Future Volume (vph) 73 466 66 36 422 72 149 355 34 63 291 63 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 435 50 200 325 160 160 255 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 105 120 140 160 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 1169 798 1237 1379 Travel Time (s) 17.7 9.9 16.9 18.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 31.5 31.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 22.0 49.0 49.0 15.0 42.0 42.0 20.0 42.0 42.0 14.0 36.0 36.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 40.8% 40.8% 12.5% 35.0% 35.0% 16.7% 35.0% 35.0% 11.7% 30.0% 30.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 65.5 (55%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 } 01 102 0? -11,13� R' 0 5 i35 0- Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 73 466 66 36 422 72 149 355 34 63 291 63 Future Volume (veh/h) 73 466 66 36 422 72 149 355 34 63 291 63 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1526 1.00 1.00 1464 1.00 1.00 1081 1.00 1.00 1027 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 253 No 681 152 No 653 435 No 482 266 No 458 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 84 536 76 41 485 83 171 408 39 72 334 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 106 1526 681 75 1464 653 231 1081 482 178 1027 458 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 84 536 76 41 485 83 171 408 39 72 334 72 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.7 12.3 3.5 2.8 11.3 3.9 6.0 11.0 2.1 2.5 9.0 4.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 12.3 3.5 2.8 11.3 3.9 6.0 11.0 2.1 2.5 9.0 4.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 106 1526 681 75 1464 653 231 1081 482 178 1027 458 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.35 0.11 0.54 0.33 0.13 0.74 0.38 0.08 0.40 0.33 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 1526 681 152 1464 653 435 1081 482 266 1027 458 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.6 22.2 19.7 56.2 23.2 21.1 54.8 32.2 29.1 55.0 32.8 31.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.2 0.6 0.3 6.0 0.6 0.4 4.6 1.0 0.3 1.5 0.8 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.8 4.9 1.2 1.3 4.4 1.4 2.6 4.6 0.8 1.1 3.7 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.7 22.8 20.1 62.2 23.8 21.5 59.5 33.2 29.4 56.4 33.7 31.8 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E C C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 696 609 618 478 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.9 26.1 40.2 36.8 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.9 42.0 9.7 57.4 12.7 40.1 11.9 55.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 37.5 10.5 44.5 15.5 31.5 17.5 37.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.5 13.0 4.8 14.3 8.0 11.0 7.7 13.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 2.5 0.0 3.7 0.3 2.0 0.1 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.4 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 80 365 72 33 372 33 136 340 52 55 330 117 Future Volume (vph) 80 365 72 33 372 33 136 340 52 55 330 117 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 210 300 240 290 220 200 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 579 1049 1270 550 Travel Time (s) 8.8 14.3 17.3 7.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 49.0 49.0 15.0 41.0 41.0 19.0 42.0 42.0 14.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split (%) 19.2% 40.8% 40.8% 12.5% 34.2% 34.2% 15.8% 35.0% 35.0% 11.7% 30.8% 30.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 64.5 (54%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue I 1 X02 'R'- 111111 03 T 04 0 =5 41s :I Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 365 72 33 372 33 136 340 52 55 330 117 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 365 72 33 372 33 136 340 52 55 330 117 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1552 1.00 1.00 1481 1.00 1.00 1081 1.00 1.00 1050 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 267 No 692 152 No 661 407 No 482 266 No 468 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 372 73 34 380 34 139 347 53 56 337 119 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 104 1552 692 69 1481 661 197 1081 482 166 1050 468 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 372 73 34 380 34 139 347 53 56 337 119 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 8.0 3.3 2.3 8.5 1.5 4.9 9.2 2.9 1.9 9.0 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 8.0 3.3 2.3 8.5 1.5 4.9 9.2 2.9 1.9 9.0 7.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 104 1552 692 69 1481 661 197 1081 482 166 1050 468 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.24 0.11 0.50 0.26 0.05 0.71 0.32 0.11 0.34 0.32 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 267 1552 692 152 1481 661 407 1081 482 266 1050 468 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.6 20.4 19.1 56.5 22.0 20.1 55.5 31.5 29.4 55.1 32.3 31.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.3 0.4 0.3 5.4 0.4 0.1 4.6 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 3.2 1.2 1.1 3.3 0.6 2.1 3.8 1.1 0.8 3.7 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.9 20.8 19.5 61.9 22.5 20.2 60.1 32.3 29.8 56.3 33.1 32.9 LnGrp LOS E C B E C C E C C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 527 448 539 512 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.9 25.3 39.2 35.6 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 58.3 11.5 40.9 11.7 55.9 10.4 42.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 44.5 14.5 32.5 18.5 36.5 9.5 37.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.3 10.0 6.9 11.0 7.6 10.5 3.9 11.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 2.6 0.2 2.2 0.1 2.3 0.0 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.3 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-14 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t r 4M tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Future Volume (vph) 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 110 110 140 140 150 150 240 0 Storage Lanes 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 0 110 25 140 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 531 5080 436 1277 Travel Time (s) 6.6 63.0 5.4 15.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-15 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh57.6 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t 81% 0% + r 0% 100% 0% 0% + 88% Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Future Vol, veh/h 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 11 14 48 8 542 6 278 33 681 213 30 Number of Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 Approach EB 144 172 WB 7 18 NB 8 542 SB 341 243 Opposing Approach WB 8 8 EB 8 8 SB 8 8 NB 8 8 Opposing Lanes 3 0.362 0.424 3 0.021 0.049 3 0.019 1.193 2 0.778 0.517 Conflicting Approach Left SB 9.345 9.19 11.347 10.827 10.248 NB 8.636 7.924 EB 8.713 8.122 WB Yes Yes Conflicting Lanes Left 3 Yes Yes 2 Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes 3 387 394 Conflicting Approach RighNB 333 352 SB 416 461 WB 419 448 EB 7.045 6.89 Conflicting Lanes Right 2 8.527 7.948 3 6.357 5.644 3 6.413 5.822 3 0.372 0.437 HCM Control Delay 13.8 0.021 0.051 121.4 0.019 1.176 18 0.814 0.542 31.5 17.3 18.5 HCM LOS B 13.8 13.5 F 11.5 132.5 C 35.9 19.2 D C C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnlWBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 4% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 96% 81% 0% 100% 20% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 88% Vol Right, % 0% 19% 0% 0% 80% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 12% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 130 155 8 7 16 43 7 488 307 307 219 LT Vol 5 0 8 0 0 43 0 0 307 307 0 Through Vol 125 125 0 7 3 0 7 0 0 0 192 RT Vol 0 30 0 0 13 0 0 488 0 0 27 Lane Flow Rate 144 172 9 7 18 48 8 542 341 341 243 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.362 0.424 0.027 0.021 0.049 0.121 0.019 1.193 0.778 0.778 0.517 Departure Headway (Hd) 9.345 9.19 11.347 10.827 10.248 9.145 8.636 7.924 8.713 8.713 8.122 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 387 394 317 333 352 394 416 461 419 419 448 Service Time 7.045 6.89 9.047 8.527 7.948 6.865 6.357 5.644 6.413 6.413 5.822 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.372 0.437 0.028 0.021 0.051 0.122 0.019 1.176 0.814 0.814 0.542 HCM Control Delay 17.3 18.5 14.4 13.8 13.5 13.1 11.5 132.5 35.9 35.9 19.2 HCM Lane LOS C C B B B B B F E E C HCM 95th -tile Q 1.6 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 20.7 6.7 6.7 2.9 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-16 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t r 4M tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Future Volume (vph) 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 110 110 140 140 150 150 240 0 Storage Lanes 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 0 110 25 140 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 531 5080 436 1277 Travel Time (s) 6.6 63.0 5.4 15.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 4 Detector Phase 2 2 6 6 4 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 61.0 30.0 30.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 Total Split (%) 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 50.8% 25.0% 25.0% 50.8% 50.8% 50.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode C -Max C -Max None None Max Max Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 87 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated ana F'nases: b: Jetterson 5t. & Avenue 04 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-17 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 858 tib 1543 1386 t r 1818 4M 1752 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 10 13 43 7 488 5 250 30 613 192 27 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 353 1.00 1.00 372 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1629 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 232 No 315 333 No 1042 386 No 372 1584 No 727 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 11 14 48 8 542 6 278 33 681 213 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 232 353 315 333 372 1042 14 662 82 1584 1629 727 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.47 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow,vehlh 858 1730 1543 1386 1821 1543 65 3117 387 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 11 14 48 8 542 168 0 149 681 213 30 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 858 1730 1543 1386 1821 1543 1818 0 1752 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 0.6 0.9 3.5 0.4 21.1 9.6 0.0 8.8 16.1 4.2 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.6 0.9 4.3 0.4 21.1 9.6 0.0 8.8 16.1 4.2 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.22 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 232 353 315 333 372 1042 386 0 372 1584 1629 727 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.14 0.02 0.52 0.43 0.00 0.40 0.43 0.13 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 232 353 315 333 372 1042 386 0 372 1584 1629 727 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.7 38.2 38.3 40.1 38.2 9.8 41.0 0.0 40.7 21.1 17.9 17.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 3.5 0.0 3.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.1 0.2 16.0 4.5 0.0 4.0 6.0 1.6 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.1 38.4 38.6 40.3 38.2 10.2 44.5 0.0 43.9 21.9 18.1 17.2 LnGrp LOS D D D D D B D A D C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 34 598 317 924 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.7 12.9 44.2 20.9 Approach LOS D B D C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.0 61.0 29.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.5 56.5 24.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.4 18.1 23.1 11.6 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 3.9 0.4 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.6 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-18 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r r r r Traffic Volume (vph) 126 408 322 15 409 322 253 563 35 209 571 95 Future Volume (vph) 126 408 322 15 409 322 253 563 35 209 571 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 55 Link Distance (ft) 709 813 334 462 Travel Time (s) 9.7 11.1 4.6 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-19 HCM 6th Roundabout EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 121.9 Intersection LOS F Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 920 802 915 941 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 939 818 933 960 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 871 1032 815 742 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 726 677 642 755 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 46.2 35.7 237.5 157.0 Approach LOS E E F F Lane Left Bypass Left Bypass Left Bypass Left Bypass Designated Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R Assumed Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R RT Channelized Free Free Free Free Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway, s 4.976 353 4.976 353 4.976 39 4.976 104 Entry Flow, veh/h 586 1887 465 1887 894 1887 856 1887 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 568 0.980 482 0.980 601 0.980 647 0.980 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 346 0.981 346 0.981 38 0.980 102 Flow Entry, veh/h 574 1850 456 1850 877 1850 839 1850 Cap Entry, veh/h 556 0.187 473 0.187 589 0.021 634 0.055 V/C Ratio 1.032 0.0 0.965 0.0 1.488 0.0 1.322 0.0 Control Delay, s/veh 74.1 A 62.7 A 247.8 A 176.1 A LOS F 1 F 1 F 0 F 0 95th %tile Queue, veh 16 12 43 35 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-20 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r 0 r 0 r Traffic Volume (vph) 126 408 322 15 409 322 253 563 35 209 571 95 Future Volume (vph) 126 408 322 15 409 322 253 563 35 209 571 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 55 Link Distance (ft) 709 813 334 462 Travel Time (s) 9.7 11.1 4.6 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-21 HCM 6th Roundabout EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.5 Intersection LOS C Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 2 2 2 2 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 920 802 915 941 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 939 818 933 960 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 871 1032 815 742 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 726 677 642 755 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.5 16.7 18.0 13.6 Approach LOS C C C B Lane Left Bypass Left Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Designated Moves LT R LT R LT TR R LT TR R Assumed Moves LT R LT R LT TR R LT TR R RT Channelized Free Free Free Free Lane Util 1.000 1.000 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.535 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 Critical Headway, s 4.328 353 4.328 353 4.645 4.328 39 4.645 4.328 104 Entry Flow, veh/h 586 1887 465 1887 420 474 1887 402 454 1887 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 677 0.980 591 0.980 638 710 0.980 682 756 0.980 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 346 0.981 346 0.981 0.981 38 0.981 0.979 102 Flow Entry, veh/h 574 1850 456 1850 412 465 1850 394 445 1850 Cap Entry, veh/h 664 0.187 579 0.187 626 696 0.021 669 740 0.055 V/C Ratio 0.865 0.0 0.787 0.0 0.658 0.667 0.0 0.589 0.601 0.0 Control Delay, s/veh 34.5 A 29.3 A 19.4 18.2 A 15.8 14.9 A LOS D 1 D 1 C C 0 C B 0 95th %tile Queue, veh 10 7 5 5 4 4 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-22 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r ) tt ) tt Traffic Volume (vph) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 957 13 40 886 51 Future Volume (vph) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 957 13 40 886 51 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 160 0 180 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 25 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 509 561 1820 1343 Travel Time (s) 13.9 15.3 22.6 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 40.5 18.0 39.5 Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 52.0 20.0 54.0 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 15.0% 43.3% 16.7% 45.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None C -Min Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 10 (8%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo S31 t O 2 'R' C04 0 5 3,3,%'. - 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-23 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 30 4 r 73 4 r ) tt 1809 ) tt 1771 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 957 13 40 886 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 957 13 40 886 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 2097 1.00 1.00 2226 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 374 No 540 391 No 540 173 No 1144 202 No 1189 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 40 1 2 4 1 17 14 1029 14 43 953 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 62 1 199 55 8 199 65 3198 43 132 3229 186 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.63 0.63 0.03 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow,vehlh 24 6 1543 11 62 1543 1734 5054 69 1734 4809 277 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 0 2 5 0 17 14 675 368 43 656 352 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 30 0 1543 73 0 1543 1734 1657 1809 1734 1657 1771 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.9 11.3 11.3 2.9 19.8 19.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.4 0.0 0.1 15.3 0.0 1.2 0.9 11.3 11.3 2.9 19.8 19.8 Prop In Lane 0.98 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.16 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 63 0 199 63 0 199 65 2097 1144 132 2226 1189 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.09 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.29 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 374 0 540 391 0 540 173 2097 1144 202 2226 1189 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.7 0.0 45.6 46.6 0.0 46.1 56.1 10.2 10.2 55.5 23.0 23.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.4 3.5 0.4 0.7 2.1 0.2 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 3.6 4.0 1.3 8.7 9.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 81.2 0.0 45.7 47.7 0.0 46.5 59.6 10.6 10.9 57.6 23.3 23.5 LnGrp LOS F A D D A D E B B E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 43 22 1057 1051 Approach Delay, s/veh 79.5 46.7 11.3 24.8 Approach LOS E D B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.1 83.3 21.6 10.5 88.0 21.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 44.5 42.0 12.0 46.5 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.9 13.3 17.4 2.9 21.8 17.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 13.3 0.3 0.0 11.5 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-24 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r t r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Future Volume (vph) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 245 100 105 0 360 220 280 230 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 45 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 693 995 1343 697 Travel Time (s) 9.5 15.1 16.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 18.0 31.5 31.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 43.5 43.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (%) 19.2% 36.3% 36.3% 15.0% 32.1% 32.1% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Min C -Min C -Min None C -Min C -Min None None None None None None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 } 0 5 i35 i3 _ 08 'R' - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-25 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 t r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Future Volume (veh/h) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1091 1.00 1.00 488 1.00 1.00 1322 1.00 1.00 1324 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 246 No 487 173 No 413 173 No 424 336 No 424 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 261 312 83 86 357 237 143 821 69 157 821 369 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 246 1091 487 164 488 413 172 1322 411 335 1324 411 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 4972 1543 3365 4972 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 261 312 83 86 357 237 143 821 69 157 821 369 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1657 1543 1682 1657 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 8.1 4.7 5.7 21.4 15.9 9.8 19.1 5.0 5.3 17.4 27.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 8.1 4.7 5.7 21.4 15.9 9.8 19.1 5.0 5.3 17.4 27.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 246 1091 487 164 488 413 172 1322 411 335 1324 411 V/C Ratio(X) 1.06 0.29 0.17 0.53 0.73 0.57 0.83 0.62 0.17 0.47 0.62 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 246 1091 487 173 488 413 173 1367 424 336 1367 424 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.5 30.9 29.7 51.8 40.0 38.0 57.0 48.9 42.4 51.0 38.7 42.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 74.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 9.3 5.7 25.2 1.0 0.3 0.4 1.0 21.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.2 3.4 1.8 2.5 10.5 6.5 5.6 8.5 1.9 2.2 6.8 12.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 126.3 31.6 30.5 52.8 49.3 43.7 82.2 49.8 42.7 51.4 39.7 63.9 LnGrp LOS F C C D D D F D D D D E Approach Vol, veh/h 656 680 1033 1347 Approach Delay, s/veh 69.1 47.8 53.9 47.7 Approach LOS E D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.9 39.4 17.3 45.3 17.9 39.5 23.0 39.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 33.0 12.0 36.0 12.0 33.0 17.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.3 21.1 7.7 10.1 11.8 29.7 19.0 23.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 5.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-26 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Future Volume (vph) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 245 100 105 0 360 220 280 230 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 45 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 693 995 1343 697 Travel Time (s) 9.5 15.1 16.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 18.0 31.5 31.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 43.5 43.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (%) 19.2% 36.3% 36.3% 15.0% 32.1% 32.1% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Min C -Min C -Min None C -Min C -Min None None None None None None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 } 0 5 1313 i3 _ 03 'R' - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-27 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Future Volume (veh/h) 256 306 81 84 350 232 140 805 68 154 805 362 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1091 1.00 1.00 927 1.00 1.00 1322 1.00 1.00 1324 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 246 No 487 173 No 413 173 No 424 336 No 424 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 261 312 83 86 357 237 143 821 69 157 821 369 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 246 1091 487 164 927 413 172 1322 411 335 1324 411 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 4972 1543 3365 4972 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 261 312 83 86 357 237 143 821 69 157 821 369 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1657 1543 1682 1657 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 8.1 4.7 5.7 10.1 15.9 9.8 19.1 5.0 5.3 17.4 27.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 8.1 4.7 5.7 10.1 15.9 9.8 19.1 5.0 5.3 17.4 27.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 246 1091 487 164 927 413 172 1322 411 335 1324 411 V/C Ratio(X) 1.06 0.29 0.17 0.53 0.39 0.57 0.83 0.62 0.17 0.47 0.62 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 246 1091 487 173 927 413 173 1367 424 336 1367 424 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.5 30.9 29.7 51.8 35.9 38.0 57.0 48.9 42.4 51.0 38.7 42.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 74.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 5.7 25.2 1.0 0.3 0.4 1.0 21.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.2 3.4 1.8 2.5 4.3 6.5 5.6 8.5 1.9 2.2 6.8 12.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 126.3 31.6 30.5 52.8 37.1 43.7 82.2 49.8 42.7 51.4 39.7 63.9 LnGrp LOS F C C D D D F D D D D E Approach Vol, veh/h 656 680 1033 1347 Approach Delay, s/veh 69.1 41.4 53.9 47.7 Approach LOS E D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.9 39.4 17.3 45.3 17.9 39.5 23.0 39.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 33.0 12.0 36.0 12.0 33.0 17.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.3 21.1 7.7 10.1 11.8 29.7 19.0 17.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 5.3 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.3 0.0 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.0 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' t r r Traffic Volume (vph) 74 66 32 185 177 78 Future Volume (vph) 74 66 32 185 177 78 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 1772 661 437 Travel Time (s) 30.2 11.3 7.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-29 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 10.5 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 100% 4 t r Vol Right, % r Traffic Vol, veh/h 74 66 32 185 177 78 Future Vol, veh/h 74 66 32 185 177 78 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 89 80 39 223 213 94 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 1 Approach EB 7 WB Degree of Util (X) SB 0.06 Opposing Approach WB 0.127 EB 5.586 5.586 4.88 Opposing Lanes 2 Convergence,Y/N 1 Yes 0 Yes Conflicting Approach Left SB 638 637 731 WB 727 Conflicting Lanes Left 2 3.355 0 3.865 2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Conflicting Approach Right 0.061 0.305 SB 0.129 EB 10.7 Conflicting Lanes Right 0 12.3 2 HCM Lane LOS 1 A HCM Control Delay 10.7 A 9.6 1 11.1 1.3 HCM LOS B A B Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 53% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 47% 100% 0% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 140 32 185 177 78 LT Vol 74 0 0 177 0 Through Vol 66 32 0 0 0 RT Vol 0 0 185 0 78 Lane Flow Rate 169 39 223 213 94 Geometry Grp 4 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.262 0.06 0.302 0.36 0.127 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.586 5.586 4.88 6.079 4.87 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 638 637 731 586 727 Service Time 3.663 3.355 2.648 3.865 2.656 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.265 0.061 0.305 0.363 0.129 HCM Control Delay 10.7 8.7 9.8 12.3 8.4 HCM Lane LOS B A A B A HCM 95th -tile Q 1 0.2 1.3 1.6 0.4 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-30 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r t r Traffic Volume (vph) 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Future Volume (vph) 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-31 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 32.7 Intersection LOS D Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 33% 4 r 0% +T+ 0% 5% 1� 100% 63% t r Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Future Vol, veh/h 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 52 107 156 11 95 184 144 377 21 90 198 63 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Approach EB 9.271 8.543 WB Yes Yes NB Yes Yes SB Yes Yes Opposing Approach WB 418 375 EB 405 366 SB 418 Service Time NB 6.429 7.379 Opposing Lanes 1 7.58 7.059 2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.369 3 0.421 0.379 2 0.246 0.51 Conflicting Approach Left SB 17.3 63.6 NB 16.7 31.3 EB 21.4 12.8 WB C F Conflicting Lanes Left 3 D C 2 B HCM 95th -tile Q 2 11.1 2 1 5.4 0.9 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 2 HCM Control Delay 18 31.3 51.3 18.4 HCM LOS C D F C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 33% 0% 4% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 95% 67% 0% 33% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 5% 0% 100% 63% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 131 362 144 142 263 82 180 57 LT Vol 131 0 47 0 10 82 0 0 Through Vol 0 343 97 0 86 0 180 0 RT Vol 0 19 0 142 167 0 0 57 Lane Flow Rate 144 398 158 156 289 90 198 63 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.368 0.956 0.421 0.377 0.715 0.245 0.509 0.149 Departure Headway (Hd) 9.208 8.649 9.588 8.694 8.912 9.792 9.271 8.543 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 390 418 375 412 405 366 388 418 Service Time 6.989 6.429 7.379 6.483 6.696 7.58 7.059 6.33 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.369 0.952 0.421 0.379 0.714 0.246 0.51 0.151 HCM Control Delay 17.3 63.6 19.2 16.7 31.3 15.8 21.4 12.8 HCM Lane LOS C F C C D C C B HCM 95th -tile Q 1.7 11.1 2 1.7 5.4 0.9 2.8 0.5 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-32 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r t r Traffic Volume (vph) 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Future Volume (vph) 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 28.0 57.0 21.0 50.0 50.0 Total Split (%) 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 23.3% 47.5% 17.5% 41.7% 41.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue 01 102 'R) 0 5 0,3,%'. 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-33 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1055 *' r 1495 0 0 1734 0 1804 1734 t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Future Volume (veh/h) 47 97 142 10 86 167 131 343 19 82 180 57 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1038 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 412 No 482 508 No 0 340 No 1090 238 No 880 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 107 156 11 95 184 144 377 21 90 198 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 95 175 336 36 114 207 172 1033 58 113 1038 880 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.60 0.60 0.07 0.57 0.57 Sat Flow,vehlh 252 803 1543 22 524 949 1734 1709 95 1734 1821 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 0 156 290 0 0 144 0 398 90 198 63 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1055 0 1543 1495 0 0 1734 0 1804 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 10.6 6.3 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 13.4 6.1 6.3 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.6 0.0 10.6 22.9 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 13.4 6.1 6.3 2.2 Prop In Lane 0.33 1.00 0.04 0.63 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 270 0 336 357 0 0 172 0 1090 113 1038 880 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.46 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.37 0.80 0.19 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 412 0 482 508 0 0 340 0 1090 238 1038 880 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.8 0.0 40.8 45.2 0.0 0.0 53.1 0.0 12.0 55.3 12.4 11.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.0 1.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.9 11.8 0.4 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.3 0.0 4.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 5.1 3.0 2.5 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.9 0.0 41.8 51.8 0.0 0.0 63.1 0.0 13.0 67.1 12.8 11.7 LnGrp LOS D A D D A A E A B E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 315 290 542 351 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.9 51.8 26.3 26.6 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.3 77.0 30.6 16.4 72.9 30.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 52.5 37.5 23.5 45.5 37.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 8.1 15.4 18.6 11.8 8.3 24.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 2.2 1.2 0.2 1.2 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.8 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-34 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r Traffic Volume (vph) 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Future Volume (vph) 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 0 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 5266 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 119.7 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-35 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 94.9 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 22% 28% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 4 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Future Vol, veh/h 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 107 158 74 36 87 49 60 543 58 37 339 71 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB E B WB 29.2 5.7 NB 7.5 0.5 SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1 HCM Control Delay 30.8 18.5 188.3 35 HCM LOS D C F D Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 9% 32% 21% 10% 0% Vol Thru, % 82% 47% 51% 90% 0% Vol Right, % 9% 22% 28% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 555 285 144 316 60 LT Vol 50 90 30 31 0 Through Vol 456 133 73 285 0 RT Vol 49 62 41 0 60 Lane Flow Rate 661 339 171 376 71 Geometry Grp 5 2 2 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 1.34 0.724 0.399 0.817 0.14 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.301 8.512 9.383 8.493 7.715 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 496 428 386 429 468 Service Time 5.368 6.512 7.383 6.193 5.415 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.333 0.792 0.443 0.876 0.152 HCM Control Delay 188.3 30.8 18.5 39.4 11.7 HCM Lane LOS F D C E B HCM 95th -tile Q 29.2 5.7 1.9 7.5 0.5 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn 1-36 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Volume (vph) 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Future Volume (vph) 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 5266 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 119.7 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 16.0 72.0 13.0 69.0 Total Split (%) 29.2% 29.2% 29.2% 29.2% 13.3% 60.0% 10.8% 57.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases:12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 } 01 102 'R'- 3� 05 M". Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-37 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1253 1� 1722 1148 0 1710 1734 0 1790 1734 0 1766 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 90 133 62 30 73 41 50 456 49 31 285 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 290 No 438 205 No 435 166 No 1193 123 No 1161 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 107 158 74 36 87 49 60 543 58 37 339 71 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 196 211 99 120 197 111 87 1078 115 72 960 201 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.67 0.67 0.04 0.66 0.66 Sat Flow,vehlh 1253 1173 549 1148 1094 616 1734 1617 173 1734 1460 306 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 107 0 232 36 0 136 60 0 601 37 0 410 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1253 0 1722 1148 0 1710 1734 0 1790 1734 0 1766 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 0.0 15.3 3.7 0.0 8.5 4.1 0.0 20.2 2.5 0.0 12.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.5 0.0 15.3 19.0 0.0 8.5 4.1 0.0 20.2 2.5 0.0 12.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 196 0 309 120 0 307 87 0 1193 72 0 1161 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.00 0.75 0.30 0.00 0.44 0.69 0.00 0.50 0.52 0.00 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 290 0 438 205 0 435 166 0 1193 123 0 1161 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.1 0.0 46.7 55.7 0.0 43.9 56.0 0.0 10.0 56.3 0.0 9.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 4.4 1.4 0.0 1.0 9.1 0.0 1.5 5.6 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.2 0.0 6.7 1.1 0.0 3.7 2.0 0.0 7.1 1.2 0.0 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.5 0.0 51.1 57.1 0.0 44.9 65.2 0.0 11.6 62.0 0.0 10.0 LnGrp LOS D A D E A D E A B E A B Approach Vol, veh/h 339 172 661 447 Approach Delay, s/veh 52.1 47.4 16.4 14.3 Approach LOS D D B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.5 84.5 26.1 10.6 83.4 26.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.5 67.5 30.5 11.5 64.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.5 22.2 20.5 6.1 14.4 21.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.9 1.1 0.0 2.4 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.6 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-38 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Future Volume (vph) 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 280 150 150 150 105 150 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 25 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 1251 918 726 Travel Time (s) 71.6 17.1 12.5 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-39 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh80.2 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r 0% 54% 0% 100% 88% Vol Right, % ) tt 0% Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Future Vol, veh/h 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 156 22 39 95 42 34 551 76 84 348 15 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 Approach EB 8 8 WB Degree of Util (X) 0.076 NB 0 0.35 SB 0.415 0.19 Opposing Approach WB 0.278 Departure Headway (Hd) EB 7.366 8.712 SB 7.986 9.166 NB 8.313 8.229 Opposing Lanes 1 Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes 2 Cap 448 Conflicting Approach Left SB 0 416 NB 395 409 EB 440 Service Time WB 5.146 6.412 Conflicting Lanes Left 3 5.686 6.866 2 6.013 5.929 3 0.076 1.267 1 0.375 0.049 Conflicting Approach RighNB 0.205 0.532 SB HCM Control Delay 11.4 WB 11.4 16 EB 18.2 13.6 Conflicting Lanes Right 2 14.1 HCM Lane LOS 3 F N 1 B C 3 C B HCM Control Delay 15.4 0.2 26 18.2 1.5 0.1 157.3 0.7 2.7 16.5 HCM LOS C C F C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 88% 100% 100% 0% 54% 0% 100% 88% Vol Right, % 0% 12% 0% 0% 100% 24% 0% 0% 12% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 29 533 0 133 19 150 71 197 112 LT Vol 29 0 0 0 0 33 71 0 0 Through Vol 0 468 0 133 0 81 0 197 99 RT Vol 0 65 0 0 19 36 0 0 13 Lane Flow Rate 34 627 0 156 22 176 84 232 131 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.076 1.283 0 0.35 0.046 0.415 0.19 0.496 0.278 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.967 7.366 8.712 8.712 7.986 9.166 8.829 8.313 8.229 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 448 495 0 416 451 395 409 436 440 Service Time 5.747 5.146 6.412 6.412 5.686 6.866 6.529 6.013 5.929 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.076 1.267 0 0.375 0.049 0.446 0.205 0.532 0.298 HCM Control Delay 11.4 165.2 11.4 16 11.1 18.2 13.6 18.9 14.1 HCM Lane LOS B F N C B C B C B HCM 95th -tile Q 0.2 26 0 1.5 0.1 2 0.7 2.7 1.1 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn 1-40 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Future Volume (vph) 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 280 150 150 150 105 150 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 25 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 1251 918 726 Travel Time (s) 71.6 17.1 12.5 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 12.0 71.0 19.0 78.0 78.0 Total Split (%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.0% 59.2% 15.8% 65.0% 65.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. 01 1 I Q 2 'R'- -1"04 4\ 05 7: 06 ',R- 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. M HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1252 t r 1263 0 0 1734 0 1782 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 133 19 33 81 36 29 468 65 71 296 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 294 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 2375 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 124 No 328 321 No 0 108 No 1185 210 No 1059 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 156 22 39 95 42 34 551 76 84 348 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 60 294 249 66 126 49 69 1041 144 106 2375 1059 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.06 0.69 0.69 Sat Flow,vehlh 1252 1821 1543 179 782 301 1734 1566 216 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 156 22 176 0 0 34 0 627 84 348 15 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1252 1821 1543 1263 0 0 1734 0 1782 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 9.4 1.5 7.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 21.8 5.7 4.2 0.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 9.4 1.5 17.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 21.8 5.7 4.2 0.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.22 0.24 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 294 249 241 0 0 69 0 1185 106 2375 1059 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.53 0.09 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.53 0.79 0.15 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 124 387 328 321 0 0 108 0 1185 210 2375 1059 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 46.1 42.8 49.5 0.0 0.0 56.5 0.0 10.4 55.6 6.6 6.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.4 0.1 5.7 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 1.7 12.3 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 4.2 0.5 5.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.7 2.8 1.3 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 47.5 42.9 55.1 0.0 0.0 61.9 0.0 12.1 67.9 6.7 6.0 LnGrp LOS A D D E A A E A B E A A Approach Vol, veh/h 178 176 661 447 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.0 55.1 14.7 18.2 Approach LOS D E B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.8 84.3 23.9 9.2 86.9 23.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 66.5 25.5 7.5 73.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.7 23.8 11.4 4.3 6.2 19.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 4.2 0.6 0.0 2.2 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.5 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-42 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� *' r Traffic Volume (vph) 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Future Volume (vph) 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 150 150 150 150 150 150 700 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 100 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 672 623 677 775 Travel Time (s) 8.3 7.7 9.2 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-43 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 245.8 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vol Right, % 1� 0% 23% 15% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop 4 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Future Vol, veh/h 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 54 249 74 46 330 64 132 554 37 63 440 136 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB 2.171 0.203 WB 1.566 1.696 NB HCM Control Delay 475.3 SB 61.3 153.9 Opposing Approach WB HCM Lane LOS F EB F F SB C HCM 95th -tile Q NB 0.5 7.4 Opposing Lanes 1 1.4 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 55.2 153.9 475.3 161.6 HCM LOS F F F F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 18% 100% 0% 10% 13% 0% Vol Thru, % 77% 0% 77% 75% 87% 0% Vol Right, % 5% 0% 23% 15% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 586 44 262 356 407 110 LT Vol 107 44 0 37 51 0 Through Vol 449 0 202 267 356 0 RT Vol 30 0 60 52 0 110 Lane Flow Rate 723 54 323 440 502 136 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 1.976 0.154 0.86 1.192 1.322 0.329 Departure Headway (Hd) 11.305 13.562 12.855 13.179 12.386 11.571 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 333 266 285 281 296 314 Service Time 9.305 11.262 10.555 11.179 10.086 9.271 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.171 0.203 1.133 1.566 1.696 0.433 HCM Control Delay 475.3 18.7 61.3 153.9 199.9 19.8 HCM Lane LOS F C F F F C HCM 95th -tile Q 44.2 0.5 7.4 14.8 19.2 1.4 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-44 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements -11 � � t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Volume (vph) 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Future Volume (vph) 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 150 150 150 150 150 150 700 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 100 25 25 25 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 672 623 677 775 Travel Time (s) 8.3 7.7 9.2 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 20.0 64.0 15.0 59.0 Total Split (%) 34.2% 34.2% 34.2% 34.2% 16.7% 53.3% 12.5% 49.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 } 01 I Q2 IF -1004 05 06 X 03 �:l Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-45 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 990 1� 1749 1057 0 1769 1734 0 1801 1734 0 1747 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Future Volume (veh/h) 44 202 60 37 267 52 107 449 30 51 356 110 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 157 No 532 209 No 538 224 No 1000 152 No 900 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 249 74 46 330 64 132 554 37 63 440 136 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 134 379 113 185 417 81 158 937 63 89 687 212 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.56 0.56 0.05 0.52 0.52 Sat Flow,vehlh 990 1348 401 1057 1482 287 1734 1688 113 1734 1334 412 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 0 323 46 0 394 132 0 591 63 0 576 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 990 0 1749 1057 0 1769 1734 0 1801 1734 0 1747 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.4 0.0 19.5 4.8 0.0 24.7 9.0 0.0 26.1 4.3 0.0 28.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.1 0.0 19.5 24.4 0.0 24.7 9.0 0.0 26.1 4.3 0.0 28.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.24 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 134 0 492 185 0 497 158 0 1000 89 0 900 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.00 0.66 0.25 0.00 0.79 0.83 0.00 0.59 0.71 0.00 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 157 0 532 209 0 538 224 0 1000 152 0 900 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.3 0.0 38.0 48.8 0.0 39.9 53.6 0.0 17.7 56.1 0.0 21.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 0.0 2.6 0.7 0.0 7.4 16.6 0.0 2.6 9.9 0.0 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.6 0.0 8.3 1.3 0.0 11.1 4.5 0.0 10.4 2.1 0.0 11.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.2 0.0 40.7 49.5 0.0 47.3 70.2 0.0 20.2 66.0 0.0 24.5 LnGrp LOS E A D D A D E A C E A C Approach Vol, veh/h 377 440 723 639 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.9 47.5 29.4 28.6 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.6 71.1 38.2 15.5 66.3 38.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 59.5 36.5 15.5 54.5 36.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.3 28.1 33.1 11.0 30.6 26.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.7 0.6 0.1 3.5 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.2 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-46 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Future Volume (vph) 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 190 200 100 50 150 150 195 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 25 90 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 817 587 676 1348 Travel Time (s) 10.1 7.3 9.2 18.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-47 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Intersection Intersection Delay, slvel186.8 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r 0% + r 0% 0% 100% ) t 10% Traffic Vol, veh/h 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Future Vol, veh/h 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 128 437 65 41 440 166 80 487 61 135 464 71 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 Approach EB 309 226 WB 8 8 NB 8 8 SB 8 7 Opposing Approach WB 7 Degree of Util (X) EB 0.425 1.395 SB 0.59 0.914 NB 0.394 0.861 Opposing Lanes 3 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.057 14.562 14.007 3 13.776 13.462 12.912 12.67 3 Yes Yes 1 Yes Yes Conflicting Approach Left SB Yes Yes NB Yes Cap EB 249 262 WB 248 252 Conflicting Lanes Left 3 270 284 1 Service Time 9.757 12.262 11.707 3 11.476 11.162 10.612 10.37 3 2.039 0.514 Conflicting Approach RighNB 0.238 0.758 SB 0.629 0.5 WB 0.787 HCM Control Delay EB 27.6 234.8 Conflicting Lanes Right 1 36.5 77.7 3 24.7 61.7 3 HCM Lane LOS F 3 F C HCM Control Delay 170.5 F D 53.2 F D 492.5 43 2 44.8 0.7 3.4 HCM LOS F 2.5 1.8 F 3.8 F E Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnlWBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 13% 100% 0% 0% 22% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 78% 0% 100% 0% 78% 100% 0% 0% 100% 69% Vol Right, % 10% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 31% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 521 106 363 54 156 243 138 112 257 187 LT Vol 66 106 0 0 34 0 0 112 0 0 Through Vol 404 0 363 0 122 243 0 0 257 128 RT Vol 51 0 0 54 0 0 138 0 0 59 Lane Flow Rate 628 128 437 65 188 293 166 135 309 226 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 2.011 0.425 1.395 0.195 0.59 0.914 0.486 0.394 0.861 0.615 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.057 14.562 14.007 13.23 14.686 14.563 13.776 13.462 12.912 12.67 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 308 249 262 273 248 252 264 270 284 287 Service Time 9.757 12.262 11.707 10.93 12.386 12.263 11.476 11.162 10.612 10.37 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.039 0.514 1.668 0.238 0.758 1.163 0.629 0.5 1.088 0.787 HCM Control Delay 492.5 27.6 234.8 19.1 36.5 77.7 28.8 24.7 61.7 33.7 HCM Lane LOS F D F C E F D C F D HCM 95th -tile Q 43 2 19.6 0.7 3.4 8 2.5 1.8 7.4 3.8 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn 1-48 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Future Volume (vph) 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 190 200 100 50 150 150 195 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 25 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 817 587 676 1348 Travel Time (s) 10.1 7.3 9.2 18.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 21.1 42.0 42.0 11.5 32.4 32.4 66.5 66.5 66.5 66.5 Total Split (%) 17.6% 35.0% 35.0% 9.6% 27.0% 27.0% 55.4% 55.4% 55.4% 55.4% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 t0 2 'R' ? x.34 06 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-49 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 tt r 1612 0 0 859 t 1739 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Future Volume (veh/h) 106 363 54 34 365 138 66 404 51 112 385 59 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 477 1.00 1.00 749 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1007 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 240 No 482 101 No 359 972 No 0 428 No 1012 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 128 437 65 41 440 166 80 487 61 135 464 71 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 154 477 405 75 749 334 130 750 91 428 1752 267 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 3460 1543 166 1290 157 859 3011 458 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 128 437 65 41 440 166 628 0 0 135 266 269 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1543 1612 0 0 859 1730 1739 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 28.0 3.9 2.8 13.7 11.3 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 9.1 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 28.0 3.9 2.8 13.7 11.3 30.5 0.0 0.0 31.3 9.1 9.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.10 1.00 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 154 477 405 75 749 334 972 0 0 428 1007 1012 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.92 0.16 0.54 0.59 0.50 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.26 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 240 569 482 101 804 359 972 0 0 428 1007 1012 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.8 43.0 34.1 56.2 42.2 41.3 16.6 0.0 0.0 17.4 12.4 12.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.0 17.7 0.2 6.0 1.0 1.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.2 14.2 1.4 1.3 5.7 4.2 11.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.4 3.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.7 60.7 34.3 62.2 43.2 42.4 19.9 0.0 0.0 19.3 13.0 13.1 LnGrp LOS E E C E D D B A A B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 630 647 628 670 Approach Delay, s/veh 59.2 44.2 19.9 14.3 Approach LOS E D B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 74.3 9.7 36.0 74.3 15.2 30.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 62.0 7.0 37.5 62.0 16.6 27.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 32.5 4.8 30.0 33.3 10.7 15.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 4.4 0.0 1.5 3.8 0.1 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.2 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-50 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue -11 � � t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r t t Traffic Volume (vph) 30 281 44 40 383 124 30 517 53 77 463 44 Future Volume (vph) 30 281 44 40 383 124 30 517 53 77 463 44 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 210 120 220 150 200 150 170 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 710 640 1322 436 Travel Time (s) 9.7 8.7 18.0 5.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 1 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 11.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 12.0 11.5 22.0 12.0 22.5 Total Split (%) 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 20.0% 19.2% 36.7% 20.0% 37.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 1 102 'R' -1"04 5 06 'R'- i33 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-51 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 821 t r 1000 t r 1734 t 1763 1734 t 1766 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 281 44 40 383 124 30 517 53 77 463 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 281 44 40 383 124 30 517 53 77 463 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 580 1.00 1.00 580 1.00 1.00 661 1.00 1.00 730 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 237 No 566 335 No 719 217 No 674 231 No 745 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 331 52 47 451 146 35 608 62 91 545 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 197 580 491 287 580 645 104 1212 123 172 1346 128 Arrive On Green 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.38 0.37 0.10 0.42 0.41 Sat Flow, vehlh 821 1821 1543 1000 1821 1543 1734 3170 323 1734 3193 304 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 35 331 52 47 451 146 35 331 339 91 295 302 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 821 1821 1543 1000 1821 1543 1734 1730 1763 1734 1730 1766 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 9.1 1.4 2.5 13.5 3.7 1.2 8.8 8.8 3.0 7.1 7.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.9 9.1 1.4 11.5 13.5 3.7 1.2 8.8 8.8 3.0 7.1 7.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 197 580 491 287 580 645 104 661 674 172 730 745 V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.57 0.11 0.16 0.78 0.23 0.34 0.50 0.50 0.53 0.40 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 237 668 566 335 668 719 217 661 674 231 730 745 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.7 17.0 14.4 21.8 18.5 11.2 27.1 14.2 14.2 25.7 12.1 12.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.3 5.1 0.2 1.9 2.7 2.7 2.5 1.7 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.4 3.2 0.4 0.5 5.4 1.0 0.5 3.2 3.2 1.2 2.4 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.1 17.9 14.5 22.1 23.6 11.4 29.0 16.9 16.9 28.2 13.8 13.8 LnGrp LOS C B B C C B C B B C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 418 644 705 688 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.2 20.7 17.5 15.7 Approach LOS B C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 26.9 23.1 7.6 29.3 23.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 17.5 21.5 7.0 18.0 21.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.0 10.8 17.9 3.2 9.2 15.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 2.0 0.7 0.0 2.1 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.9 HCM 6th LOS B Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-52 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 41 148 12 2 102 4 6 168 3 13 168 24 Future Volume (vph) 41 148 12 2 102 4 6 168 3 13 168 24 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 5266 1079 1013 510 Travel Time (s) 71.8 14.7 12.6 6.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-53 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 10.1 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 3% 20% 2% 6% Vol Thru, % 95% 74% 94% 82% Vol Right, % 2% 6% Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 148 12 2 102 4 6 168 3 13 168 24 Future Vol, veh/h 41 148 12 2 102 4 6 168 3 13 168 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 44 157 13 2 109 4 6 179 3 14 179 26 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB 0.6 1.3 WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 10.4 9.4 10 10.2 HCM LOS B A A B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 3% 20% 2% 6% Vol Thru, % 95% 74% 94% 82% Vol Right, % 2% 6% 4% 12% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 177 201 108 205 LT Vol 6 41 2 13 Through Vol 168 148 102 168 RT Vol 3 12 4 24 Lane Flow Rate 188 214 115 218 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.264 0.302 0.17 0.3 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.049 5.092 5.315 4.958 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 702 697 679 715 Service Time 3.147 3.186 3.315 3.053 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.268 0.307 0.169 0.305 HCM Control Delay 10 10.4 9.4 10.2 HCM Lane LOS A B A B HCM 95th -tile Q 1.1 1.3 0.6 1.3 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) AM.syn 1-54 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 33 95 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 33 95 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25 Link Distance (ft) 207 1772 380 Travel Time (s) 3.5 30.2 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-55 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.7 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 33 95 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 33 95 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 36 103 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 36 0 - 0 18 18 Stage 1 - - - - 18 - Stage 2 - - 0 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1575 - 1000 1061 Stage 1 - - 1005 - Stage 2 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1575 - 1000 1061 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 1000 - Stage 1 - 1005 Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1575 - - 1000 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.103 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 9 HCM Lane LOS A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.3 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-56 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt tt Traffic Volume (vph) 276 20 24 327 316 105 Future Volume (vph) 276 20 24 327 316 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 499 880 159 Travel Time (s) 13.6 12.0 2.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 24.0 24.0 11.5 36.0 24.5 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 19.2% 60.0% 40.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 19: Madison St. & Main Access t02'R' 04 05 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-57 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Improvements t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 r 1734 tt tt 1670 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 276 20 24 327 316 105 Future Volume (veh/h) 276 20 24 327 316 105 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 2220 909 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 502 202 No No 878 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 300 22 26 355 343 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 361 321 71 2220 1347 441 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.64 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 1734 3551 2653 838 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 300 22 26 355 230 227 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1734 1730 1730 1670 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.9 0.7 0.9 2.5 4.4 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 0.7 0.9 2.5 4.4 4.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 361 321 71 2220 909 878 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.07 0.37 0.16 0.25 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 564 502 202 2220 909 878 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.7 19.1 28.0 4.3 7.8 7.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.0 0.1 3.1 0.2 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.4 0.7 0.4 0.5 1.3 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.8 19.2 31.1 4.4 8.5 8.5 LnGrp LOS C B C A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 322 381 457 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.1 6.3 8.5 Approach LOS C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 43.0 17.0 7.0 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 19.5 7.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.5 11.9 2.9 6.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 2.0 0.6 0.0 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.2 HCM 6th LOS B Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-58 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-59 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� tt Traffic Volume (vph) 201 4 13 161 6 3 Future Volume (vph) 201 4 13 161 6 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 50 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 403 335 383 Travel Time (s) 5.5 4.6 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-59 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� HCM Lane LOS ) tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - Traffic Vol, veh/h 201 4 13 161 6 3 Future Vol, veh/h 201 4 13 161 6 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 50 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 218 4 14 175 7 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 222 0 336 220 Stage 1 - - - - 220 - Stage 2 - 116 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 6.63 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.83 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 3.519 3.319 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1346 646 819 Stage 1 - 816 - Stage 2 - 897 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1346 640 819 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 678 - Stage 1 - 816 Stage 2 - 888 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 10.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 719 - 1346 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - 0.01 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 - 7.7 HCM Lane LOS B - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. .e Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-61 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 197 7 0 174 0 4 Future Volume (vph) 197 7 0 174 0 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 335 276 233 Travel Time (s) 4.6 3.8 6.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-61 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� 0 - - tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 197 7 0 174 0 4 Future Vol, veh/h 197 7 0 174 0 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 214 8 0 189 0 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - 218 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy - - 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.319 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 821 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 821 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.4 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 821 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-62 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 10 0 603 411 14 Future Volume (vph) 0 10 0 603 411 14 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 210 234 288 Travel Time (s) 5.7 3.2 3.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-63 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 10 0 603 411 14 Future Vol, veh/h 0 10 0 603 411 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 11 0 655 447 15 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 231 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.94 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 771 0 - Stage 1 0 - 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 771 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.7 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 771 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 - HCM Lane LOS A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-64 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1 1 259 255 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 1 1 259 255 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 25 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 306 593 547 Travel Time (s) 8.3 10.1 9.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-65 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y ) tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 259 255 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 259 255 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 150 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 1 282 277 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 421 139 278 0 - 0 Stage 1 278 - - - - - Stage 2 143 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 561 884 1282 - - Stage 1 744 - - - Stage 2 869 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 560 884 1282 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 560 - - - Stage 1 743 - - - - Stage 2 869 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1282 - 686 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 - 10.3 - HCM Lane LOS A - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-66 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Future Volume (vph) 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-67 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 87.9 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt tt tt Traffic Vol, veh/h 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Future Vol, veh/h 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 146 148 24 150 125 180 16 491 92 141 711 142 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 3 3 3 3 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 3 3 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 3 3 HCM Control Delay 26.7 30.6 70.1 144.4 HCM LOS D D F F Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 64% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 19% 0% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 36% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 81% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 15 301 236 134 136 22 138 77 204 130 436 LT Vol 15 0 0 134 0 0 138 0 0 130 0 Through Vol 0 301 151 0 136 0 0 77 38 0 436 RT Vol 0 0 85 0 0 22 0 0 166 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 16 328 256 146 148 24 150 83 222 141 474 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.053 1.024 0.783 0.514 0.502 0.077 0.514 0.274 0.695 0.429 1.376 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.007 11.507 11.254 12.852 12.352 11.652 12.55 12.05 11.481 10.939 10.453 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 300 318 323 283 294 309 290 300 318 329 351 Service Time 9.707 9.207 8.954 10.552 10.052 9.352 10.25 9.75 9.181 8.697 8.197 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.053 1.031 0.793 0.516 0.503 0.078 0.517 0.277 0.698 0.429 1.35 HCM Control Delay 15.4 92.6 44.8 28.4 26.9 15.3 27.8 19.2 36.7 21.7 214.7 HCM Lane LOS C F E D D C D C E C F HCM 95th -tile Q 0.2 11.4 6.3 2.7 2.6 0.2 2.7 1.1 4.9 2.1 23.6 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-68 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Future Volume (vph) 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 28.0 27.0 27.0 28.0 27.0 27.0 13.0 38.0 38.0 27.0 52.0 52.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 22.5% 22.5% 23.3% 22.5% 22.5% 10.8% 31.7% 31.7% 22.5% 43.3% 43.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 05 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-69 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Future Volume (veh/h) 134 136 22 138 115 166 15 452 85 130 654 131 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 244 1.00 1.00 472 1.00 1.00 1784 1.00 1.00 2038 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 340 No 289 340 No 289 123 No 796 325 No 909 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 146 148 24 150 125 180 16 491 92 141 711 142 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 175 244 207 179 472 210 42 1784 796 169 2038 909 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.10 0.59 0.59 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 146 148 24 150 125 180 16 491 92 141 711 142 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.9 9.2 1.6 10.2 3.9 13.7 1.1 9.6 3.7 9.6 12.8 5.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 9.2 1.6 10.2 3.9 13.7 1.1 9.6 3.7 9.6 12.8 5.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 175 244 207 179 472 210 42 1784 796 169 2038 909 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.61 0.12 0.84 0.27 0.86 0.38 0.28 0.12 0.83 0.35 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 340 341 289 340 649 289 123 1784 796 325 2038 909 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.0 49.0 45.7 52.8 46.4 50.7 57.7 16.4 15.0 53.2 12.8 11.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.0 2.4 0.2 10.0 0.3 16.5 5.6 0.4 0.3 10.1 0.5 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.7 4.2 0.6 4.8 1.6 6.1 0.5 3.6 1.3 4.5 4.6 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.0 51.4 46.0 62.8 46.7 67.1 63.3 16.8 15.3 63.3 13.2 11.5 LnGrp LOS E D D E D E E B B E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 318 455 599 994 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.3 60.1 17.8 20.1 Approach LOS E E B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.2 66.4 16.9 20.6 7.4 75.2 16.6 20.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 33.5 23.5 22.5 8.5 47.5 23.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 11.6 11.6 12.2 11.2 3.1 14.8 11.9 15.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 3.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 5.2 0.3 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.1 HCM 6th LOS C The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-70 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r A tt r tt Traffic Volume (vph) 88 108 1 623 75 76 764 Future Volume (vph) 88 108 1 623 75 76 764 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 140 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 767 818 Travel Time (s) 71.6 10.5 11.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Detector Phase 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 20.5 20.5 11.5 28.0 28.0 11.5 28.0 Total Split (%) 34.2% 34.2% 19.2% 46.7% 46.7% 19.2% 46.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 28 (47%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. t0'R' 01? 7 05 'R'5 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-71 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Movement WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In r A tt r 1543 tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 88 108 1 623 75 76 764 Future Volume (veh/h) 88 108 1 623 75 76 764 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 212 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 0.51 No 0.18 0.33 No Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 121 700 84 85 858 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 212 188 1384 617 482 2577 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.74 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 3551 1543 1734 3551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 99 121 700 84 85 858 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1730 1543 1734 1730 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 4.5 9.1 1.1 2.2 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 4.5 9.1 1.1 2.2 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 212 188 1384 617 482 2577 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.64 0.51 0.14 0.18 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 477 424 1384 617 482 2577 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.5 25.1 13.5 3.6 16.4 2.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 3.6 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.2 1.6 3.0 0.6 0.8 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.1 28.7 14.9 4.0 16.6 2.9 LnGrp LOS C C B A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 220 784 943 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.6 13.7 4.2 Approach LOS C B A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.7 28.0 48.7 11.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 23.5 23.5 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.2 11.1 7.1 6.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.6 4.9 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-72 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Future Volume (vph) 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 160 150 910 150 160 120 305 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 80 120 120 100 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5080 840 924 2398 Travel Time (s) 63.0 10.4 12.6 32.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-73 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Intersection Intersection Delay, slve250.1 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t 63% Vii tt 18% Vii tt 34% Vii t 89% Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Future Vol, veh/h 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 27 370 573 63 231 151 444 601 116 121 480 20 Number of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Approach EB 401 316 WB 246 696 NB 154 228 SB 320 180 Opposing Approach WB 8 8 EB 8 8 SB 8 8 NB 8 8 Opposing Lanes 3 1.33 1.027 3 0.89 2.403 3 0.564 0.803 3 1.162 0.65 Conflicting Approach Left SB 13.382 13.126 13.494 12.997 12.42512.452 11.952 11.489 14.521 14.021 13.942 NB Yes Yes EB Yes Yes WB Yes Yes Conflicting Lanes Left 3 Yes Yes 3 266 277 3 265 278 3 290 304 Conflicting Approach RighNB 250 262 SB 11.582 11.082 10.826 11.287 10.787 10.21110.152 WB 9.652 9.18912.221 11.721 11.642 EB 1.669 1.448 Conflicting Lanes Right 3 0.102 0.885 3 0.217 0.507 3 0.484 1.221 3 291.3 206.6 HCM Control Delay 496.8 17.8 67.5 37.4 19 29.1 210 28.9 146.2 92.3 F F HCM LOS F C F E C D F D F F 23.6 18.4 Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnlWBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th -tile Q 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 63% 0% 100% 18% 0% 100% 34% 0% 100% 89% 0% 0% 37% 0% 0% 82% 0% 0% 66% 0% 0% 11% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 395 357 281 24 219 620 56 137 203 108 285 160 395 0 0 24 0 0 56 0 0 108 0 0 0 357 178 0 219 110 0 137 69 0 285 142 0 0 103 0 0 510 0 0 134 0 0 18 444 401 316 27 246 696 63 154 228 121 320 180 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1.533 1.33 1.027 0.101 0.89 2.403 0.238 0.564 0.803 0.457 1.162 0.65 13.882 13.382 13.126 13.494 12.997 12.42512.452 11.952 11.489 14.521 14.021 13.942 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 266 277 278 265 278 299 290 304 317 250 262 261 11.582 11.082 10.826 11.287 10.787 10.21110.152 9.652 9.18912.221 11.721 11.642 1.669 1.448 1.137 0.102 0.885 2.328 0.217 0.507 0.719 0.484 1.221 0.69 291.3 206.6 100 17.8 67.5 667.3 19 29.1 48.1 28.9 146.2 39.3 F F F C F F C D E D F E 23.6 18.4 10.8 0.3 7.9 55.2 0.9 3.2 6.6 2.2 13.5 4.1 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn 1-74 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Future Volume (vph) 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 160 150 910 150 160 120 305 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 80 120 120 100 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5080 840 924 2398 Travel Time (s) 63.0 10.4 12.6 32.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 11.6 44.0 14.8 47.2 47.2 28.6 40.2 40.2 21.0 32.6 Total Split (%) 9.7% 36.7% 12.3% 39.3% 39.3% 23.8% 33.5% 33.5% 17.5% 27.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 0 5 v 'R' 07 i33 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-75 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1543 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1734 t 1796 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 24 329 510 56 206 134 395 535 103 108 427 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 569 1.00 1.00 1196 1.00 1.00 1332 1.00 1.00 548 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 103 No 508 149 No 549 676 No 594 238 No 569 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 370 573 63 231 151 444 601 116 121 480 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 60 569 508 89 1196 534 515 1332 594 147 1072 45 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.33 0.33 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1730 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 1734 3385 141 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 370 573 63 231 151 444 601 116 121 245 255 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1734 1730 1796 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 21.9 39.5 4.3 5.6 8.5 15.5 15.5 6.0 8.2 13.5 13.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 21.9 39.5 4.3 5.6 8.5 15.5 15.5 6.0 8.2 13.5 13.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 569 508 89 1196 534 515 1332 594 147 548 569 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.65 1.13 0.71 0.19 0.28 0.86 0.45 0.20 0.82 0.45 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 103 569 508 149 1231 549 676 1332 594 238 548 569 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.84 0.84 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.8 34.3 40.3 56.1 27.5 28.5 49.6 27.5 24.6 54.0 32.6 32.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 2.2 77.1 9.9 0.1 0.3 8.9 1.1 0.7 11.3 2.6 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.8 9.0 24.8 2.0 2.2 3.0 6.9 6.3 2.2 3.9 5.8 6.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.2 36.5 117.4 66.0 27.6 28.8 58.5 28.6 25.3 65.3 35.3 35.2 LnGrp LOS E D F E C C E C C E D D Approach Vol, veh/h 970 445 1161 621 Approach Delay, s/veh 85.0 33.4 39.7 41.1 Approach LOS F C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.7 50.7 10.6 44.0 22.8 42.5 8.7 46.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 35.7 10.3 39.5 24.1 28.1 7.1 42.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 10.2 17.5 6.3 41.5 17.5 15.6 3.8 10.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.1 0.0 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.8 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-76 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 -11 � � t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 86 547 106 49 497 70 131 453 60 79 395 77 Future Volume (vph) 86 547 106 49 497 70 131 453 60 79 395 77 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 435 50 200 325 160 160 255 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 105 120 140 160 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 1169 798 1237 1379 Travel Time (s) 17.7 9.9 16.9 18.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 31.5 31.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 22.0 48.0 48.0 17.0 43.0 43.0 18.0 41.0 41.0 14.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 40.0% 40.0% 14.2% 35.8% 35.8% 15.0% 34.2% 34.2% 11.7% 30.8% 30.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 65.5 (55%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 }01 05 i3S �- 0.3'R' Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-77 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 547 106 49 497 70 131 453 60 79 395 77 Future Volume (veh/h) 86 547 106 49 497 70 131 453 60 79 395 77 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1525 1.00 1.00 1448 1.00 1.00 1052 1.00 1.00 1029 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 253 No 680 181 No 646 379 No 469 266 No 459 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 636 123 57 578 81 152 527 70 92 459 90 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 125 1525 680 86 1448 646 210 1052 469 187 1029 459 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.05 0.42 0.42 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 100 636 123 57 578 81 152 527 70 92 459 90 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 15.1 5.8 3.9 14.0 3.9 5.3 15.0 4.0 3.2 12.9 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 15.1 5.8 3.9 14.0 3.9 5.3 15.0 4.0 3.2 12.9 5.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 125 1525 680 86 1448 646 210 1052 469 187 1029 459 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.42 0.18 0.66 0.40 0.13 0.72 0.50 0.15 0.49 0.45 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 1525 680 181 1448 646 379 1052 469 266 1029 459 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.9 23.0 20.4 56.0 24.4 21.4 55.2 34.3 30.4 55.0 34.1 31.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.3 0.8 0.6 8.4 0.8 0.4 4.7 1.7 0.7 2.0 1.4 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.3 6.1 2.1 1.8 5.5 1.4 2.3 6.3 1.5 1.4 5.4 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.1 23.8 21.0 64.4 25.2 21.8 59.9 36.0 31.1 57.0 35.5 32.4 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E D C E D C Approach Vol, veh/h 859 716 749 641 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.4 27.9 40.4 38.2 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 41.0 10.5 57.4 12.0 40.2 13.1 54.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 36.5 12.5 43.5 13.5 32.5 17.5 38.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.2 17.0 5.9 17.1 7.3 14.9 8.8 16.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 3.2 0.0 4.5 0.2 2.7 0.1 3.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.4 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-78 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 111 498 179 55 427 77 144 521 44 73 375 115 Future Volume (vph) 111 498 179 55 427 77 144 521 44 73 375 115 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 210 300 240 290 220 200 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 579 1049 1270 550 Travel Time (s) 8.8 14.3 17.3 7.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 26.0 45.0 45.0 19.0 38.0 38.0 19.0 41.0 41.0 15.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split (%) 21.7% 37.5% 37.5% 15.8% 31.7% 31.7% 15.8% 34.2% 34.2% 12.5% 30.8% 30.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 64.5 (54%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue I 1 XO2 'R'- 03 T 04 i5 i�5'R' Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-79 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 111 498 179 55 427 77 144 521 44 73 375 115 Future Volume (veh/h) 111 498 179 55 427 77 144 521 44 73 375 115 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1530 1.00 1.00 1416 1.00 1.00 1052 1.00 1.00 1022 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 311 No 682 210 No 631 407 No 469 294 No 456 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 117 524 188 58 449 81 152 548 46 77 395 121 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 144 1530 682 87 1416 631 210 1052 469 181 1022 456 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.44 0.44 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 117 524 188 58 449 81 152 548 46 77 395 121 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 11.9 9.3 3.9 10.6 3.9 5.3 15.7 2.6 2.7 10.9 7.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 11.9 9.3 3.9 10.6 3.9 5.3 15.7 2.6 2.7 10.9 7.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 144 1530 682 87 1416 631 210 1052 469 181 1022 456 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.34 0.28 0.67 0.32 0.13 0.72 0.52 0.10 0.42 0.39 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 311 1530 682 210 1416 631 407 1052 469 294 1022 456 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.1 22.0 21.3 56.0 24.1 22.1 55.2 34.5 29.9 55.0 33.6 32.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.5 0.6 1.0 8.6 0.6 0.4 4.6 1.8 0.4 1.6 1.1 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.8 4.8 3.4 1.9 4.2 1.4 2.3 6.6 1.0 1.1 4.5 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.6 22.6 22.3 64.7 24.7 22.5 59.9 36.4 30.4 56.5 34.7 33.7 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E D C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 829 588 746 593 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.5 28.3 40.8 37.4 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 57.6 12.0 40.0 14.4 53.6 11.0 41.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 40.5 14.5 32.5 21.5 33.5 10.5 36.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.9 13.9 7.3 12.9 10.0 12.6 4.7 17.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 3.9 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.8 0.1 3.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.7 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-80 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t r 4M tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Future Volume (vph) 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 110 110 140 140 150 150 240 0 Storage Lanes 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 0 110 25 140 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 531 5080 436 1277 Travel Time (s) 6.6 63.0 5.4 15.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-81 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 180 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t 100% 80% + r 0% 0% 0% 99% + 0% Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Future Vol, veh/h 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 38 29 2 41 12 718 7 307 65 928 372 2 Number of Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 Approach EB 464 374 WB 8 8 NB 8 8 SB 8 8 Opposing Approach WB 8 Degree of Util (X) EB 0.607 0.127 SB 0.039 0.122 NB 1.873 1.142 Opposing Lanes 3 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.04 3 11.04 10.528 3 9.991 Convergence,Y/N 2 Yes Yes Conflicting Approach Left SB Yes Yes NB Yes Yes EB Cap 301 WB 260 270 Conflicting Lanes Left 3 342 381 2 348 367 3 9.74 9.51 11.57411.04410.895 3 8.228 7.513 Conflicting Approach RighNB 8.205 7.691 SB 0.535 0.708 WB 0.074 0.044 EB 0.035 1.885 Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1.019 HCM Control Delay 3 31.2 18.6 3 16.4 15.3 3 425.4 125.3 HCM Control Delay 17.7 HCM Lane LOS C 396.9 C C 28.4 C B 104.3 F F HCM LOS C 2.3 3.7 F 0.2 0.1 D 0.1 45.7 F 15.5 8.3 Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnlWBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 5% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 95% 70% 0% 100% 80% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 99% Vol Right, % 0% 30% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 1% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 132 179 31 16 10 34 10 589 381 381 307 LT Vol 6 0 31 0 0 34 0 0 381 381 0 Through Vol 126 126 0 16 8 0 10 0 0 0 305 RT Vol 0 53 0 0 2 0 0 589 0 0 2 Lane Flow Rate 161 218 38 20 12 41 12 718 464 464 374 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.458 0.607 0.127 0.063 0.039 0.122 0.034 1.873 1.142 1.142 0.869 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.04 11.81 13.87413.34413.195 11.04 10.528 9.813 10.505 10.505 9.991 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 301 308 260 270 273 327 342 381 348 348 367 Service Time 9.74 9.51 11.57411.04410.895 8.74 8.228 7.513 8.205 8.205 7.691 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.535 0.708 0.146 0.074 0.044 0.125 0.035 1.885 1.333 1.333 1.019 HCM Control Delay 24.5 31.2 18.6 16.9 16.4 15.3 13.6 425.4 125.3 125.3 52.3 HCM Lane LOS C D C C C C B F F F F HCM 95th -tile Q 2.3 3.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 45.7 15.5 15.5 8.3 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-82 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t r 4M tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Future Volume (vph) 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 110 110 140 140 150 150 240 0 Storage Lanes 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 0 110 25 140 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 531 5080 436 1277 Travel Time (s) 6.6 63.0 5.4 15.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 4 Detector Phase 2 2 6 6 4 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 66.0 27.0 27.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 Total Split (%) 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 55.0% 22.5% 22.5% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode C -Max C -Max None None Max Max Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated ana F'nases: b: Jetterson St. 6 Avenue 04 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-83 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 726 tib 1781 1378 t r 1818 4M 1708 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 24 2 34 10 589 6 252 53 761 305 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 324 1.00 1.00 341 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1773 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 192 No 334 308 No 1080 341 No 320 1724 No 791 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 38 29 2 41 12 718 7 307 65 928 372 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 192 616 42 308 341 1080 12 532 118 1724 1773 791 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.51 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow,vehlh 726 3287 224 1378 1821 1543 63 2835 628 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38 15 16 41 12 718 202 0 177 928 372 2 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 726 1730 1781 1378 1821 1543 1818 0 1708 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.4 0.9 0.9 3.0 0.6 22.5 12.2 0.0 11.3 22.3 7.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 0.9 0.9 3.9 0.6 22.5 12.2 0.0 11.3 22.3 7.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.37 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 192 324 334 308 341 1080 341 0 320 1724 1773 791 V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.04 0.66 0.59 0.00 0.55 0.54 0.21 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 192 324 334 308 341 1080 341 0 320 1724 1773 791 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.4 40.0 40.0 41.6 39.9 8.8 44.6 0.0 44.2 19.7 16.0 14.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.2 7.4 0.0 6.7 1.2 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.1 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.3 21.4 5.9 0.0 5.1 8.1 2.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.6 40.2 40.2 41.7 39.9 10.0 52.0 0.0 50.9 20.9 16.2 14.3 LnGrp LOS D D D D D A D A D C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 69 771 379 1302 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.7 12.1 51.5 19.6 Approach LOS D B D B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.0 66.0 27.0 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 61.5 22.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 8.1 24.3 24.5 14.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 6.4 0.0 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.7 HCM 6th LOS C The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-84 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r r r r Traffic Volume (vph) 108 429 364 31 470 334 253 727 77 200 781 155 Future Volume (vph) 108 429 364 31 470 334 253 727 77 200 781 155 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 55 Link Distance (ft) 709 813 334 462 Travel Time (s) 9.7 11.1 4.6 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-85 HCM 6th Roundabout EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 241.0 Intersection LOS F Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 968 897 1137 1222 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 987 915 1160 1246 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1110 1193 807 826 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 792 689 891 916 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 111.1 118.7 345.6 336.1 Approach LOS F F F F Lane Left Bypass Left Bypass Left Bypass Left Bypass Designated Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R Assumed Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R RT Channelized Free Free Free Free Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway, s 4.976 399 4.976 366 4.976 85 4.976 170 Entry Flow, veh/h 588 1887 549 1887 1075 1887 1076 1887 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 445 0.980 409 0.980 606 0.980 594 0.980 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 391 0.980 359 0.981 83 0.981 167 Flow Entry, veh/h 577 1850 538 1850 1054 1850 1055 1850 Cap Entry, veh/h 436 0.211 400 0.194 594 0.045 583 0.090 V/C Ratio 1.322 0.0 1.343 0.0 1.774 0.0 1.811 0.0 Control Delay, s/veh 186.4 A 198.0 A 372.8 A 389.3 A LOS F 1 F 1 F 0 F 0 95th %tile Queue, veh 26 25 64 65 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-86 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r 0 r 0 r Traffic Volume (vph) 108 429 364 31 470 334 253 727 77 200 781 155 Future Volume (vph) 108 429 364 31 470 334 253 727 77 200 781 155 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 55 Link Distance (ft) 709 813 334 462 Travel Time (s) 9.7 11.1 4.6 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-87 HCM 6th Roundabout EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 34.8 Intersection LOS D Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 2 2 2 2 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 968 897 1137 1222 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 987 915 1160 1246 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1110 1193 807 826 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 792 689 891 916 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.4 49.6 24.1 23.8 Approach LOS E E C C Lane Left Bypass Left Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Designated Moves LT R LT R LT TR R LT TR R Assumed Moves LT R LT R LT TR R LT TR R RT Channelized Free Free Free Free Lane Util 1.000 1.000 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.480 2.480 2.667 2.480 2.667 2.480 Critical Headway, s 4.328 399 4.328 366 4.645 4.328 85 4.645 4.328 170 Entry Flow, veh/h 588 1887 549 1887 505 570 1887 506 570 1887 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 560 0.980 522 0.980 643 726 0.980 631 715 0.980 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 391 0.980 359 0.981 0.980 83 0.980 0.981 167 Flow Entry, veh/h 577 1850 538 1850 496 559 1850 496 559 1850 Cap Entry, veh/h 550 0.211 511 0.194 630 712 0.045 619 701 0.090 V/C Ratio 1.050 0.0 1.052 0.0 0.786 0.785 0.0 0.801 0.798 0.0 Control Delay, s/veh 79.5 A 82.8 A 27.3 24.8 A 29.1 26.2 A LOS F 1 F 1 D C 0 D D 0 95th %tile Queue, veh 17 16 8 8 8 8 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-88 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r ) tt ) tt Traffic Volume (vph) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1184 7 23 1195 68 Future Volume (vph) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1184 7 23 1195 68 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 160 0 180 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 25 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 509 561 1820 1343 Travel Time (s) 13.9 15.3 22.6 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 40.5 18.0 39.5 Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 54.0 18.0 54.0 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 15.0% 45.0% 15.0% 45.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None C -Min Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 30 (25%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo } i31 102 R' C04 00 5 i3,3,%'. 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-89 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 4 r 40 4 r ) tt 1816 ) tt 1772 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1184 7 23 1195 68 Future Volume (veh/h) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1184 7 23 1195 68 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1468 1.00 1.00 1619 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 89 No 540 86 No 540 173 No 805 173 No 866 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 69 2 22 9 1 44 3 1246 7 24 1258 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 73 1 524 66 4 524 17 2260 13 96 2350 135 Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.44 0.44 0.02 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, vehlh 41 4 1543 27 13 1543 1734 5102 29 1734 4811 275 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 0 22 10 0 44 3 809 444 24 867 463 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 44 0 1543 40 0 1543 1734 1657 1816 1734 1657 1772 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.2 21.6 21.6 1.6 28.8 28.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 40.7 0.0 1.1 40.4 0.0 2.3 0.2 21.6 21.6 1.6 28.8 28.8 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.16 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 74 0 524 71 0 524 17 1468 805 96 1619 866 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.00 0.08 0.18 0.55 0.55 0.25 0.54 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 89 0 540 86 0 540 173 1468 805 173 1619 866 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.4 0.0 26.6 45.9 0.0 27.0 59.0 24.6 24.6 56.5 37.8 37.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 81.4 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.1 10.9 1.5 2.7 1.9 0.9 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.9 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.1 8.1 9.2 0.7 12.8 13.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 140.7 0.0 26.6 47.8 0.0 27.1 69.8 26.1 27.3 58.4 38.7 39.4 LnGrp LOS F A C D A C E C C E D D Approach Vol, veh/h 93 54 1256 1354 Approach Delay, s/veh 113.7 30.9 26.7 39.3 Approach LOS F C C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.6 60.0 47.4 7.1 65.5 47.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 46.5 42.0 12.0 46.5 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.6 23.6 42.7 2.2 30.8 42.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.9 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-90 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r t r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Future Volume (vph) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 245 100 105 0 360 220 280 230 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 45 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 693 995 1343 697 Travel Time (s) 9.5 15.1 16.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 18.0 31.5 31.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 36.5 36.5 25.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (%) 19.2% 30.4% 30.4% 20.8% 32.1% 32.1% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Min C -Min C -Min None C -Min C -Min None None None None None None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 1 1 }02 4 4'R' 03 05 i313 03 'R' ' Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-91 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 t r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Future Volume (veh/h) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 582 1.00 1.00 431 1.00 1.00 1295 1.00 1.00 1297 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 308 No 373 427 No 399 173 No 424 336 No 424 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 373 421 157 158 382 221 146 1079 105 312 1005 246 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 308 582 260 427 431 365 173 1295 402 336 1297 403 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 4972 1543 3365 4972 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 373 421 157 158 382 221 146 1079 105 312 1005 246 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1657 1543 1682 1657 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 21.3 13.8 8.4 9.1 24.3 11.0 10.0 25.6 3.9 11.0 22.5 10.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.3 13.8 8.4 9.1 24.3 11.0 10.0 25.6 3.9 11.0 22.5 10.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 308 582 260 427 431 365 173 1295 402 336 1297 403 V/C Ratio(X) 1.21 0.72 0.60 0.37 0.89 0.61 0.84 0.83 0.26 0.93 0.77 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 308 836 373 427 470 399 173 1367 424 336 1367 424 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.3 47.3 25.6 37.5 44.2 21.3 57.1 52.3 11.7 53.6 41.1 14.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 120.6 7.6 10.0 0.2 22.6 7.3 27.2 4.4 0.5 30.6 2.9 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 19.2 6.4 3.7 3.8 13.3 4.6 5.8 11.8 2.9 5.9 9.0 3.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 169.9 54.9 35.7 37.7 66.9 28.5 84.3 56.6 12.1 84.1 44.0 17.3 LnGrp LOS F D D D E C F E B F D B Approach Vol, veh/h 951 761 1330 1563 Approach Delay, s/veh 96.8 49.7 56.2 47.8 Approach LOS F D E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 38.8 35.5 27.7 18.0 38.8 27.3 35.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 33.0 19.0 29.0 12.0 33.0 17.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 13.0 27.6 11.1 15.8 12.0 24.5 23.3 26.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.6 0.1 4.4 0.0 5.4 0.0 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 60.6 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-92 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Future Volume (vph) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 245 100 105 0 360 220 280 230 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 45 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 693 995 1343 697 Travel Time (s) 9.5 15.1 16.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 18.0 31.5 31.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 36.5 36.5 25.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (%) 19.2% 30.4% 30.4% 20.8% 32.1% 32.1% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% 15.0% 33.8% 33.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Min C -Min C -Min None C -Min C -Min None None None None None None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 1 1 }02 4 4'R' 03 05 i313 03 'R' S3' The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-93 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Future Volume (veh/h) 362 408 152 153 371 214 142 1047 102 303 975 239 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 582 1.00 1.00 566 1.00 1.00 1295 1.00 1.00 1297 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 435 No 373 427 No 399 173 No 424 336 No 424 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 373 421 157 158 382 221 146 1079 105 312 1005 246 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 435 582 260 427 566 253 173 1295 402 336 1297 403 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.17 0.17 0.25 0.16 0.16 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 4972 1543 3365 4972 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 373 421 157 158 382 221 146 1079 105 312 1005 246 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1657 1543 1682 1657 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 24.6 13.8 8.4 9.1 12.5 12.5 10.0 25.6 3.9 11.0 22.5 8.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.6 13.8 8.4 9.1 12.5 12.5 10.0 25.6 3.9 11.0 22.5 8.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 435 582 260 427 566 253 173 1295 402 336 1297 403 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.72 0.60 0.37 0.67 0.88 0.84 0.83 0.26 0.93 0.77 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 435 836 373 427 894 399 173 1367 424 336 1367 424 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.9 47.3 25.6 37.5 47.2 27.3 57.1 52.3 11.7 53.6 41.1 10.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.3 7.6 10.0 0.2 6.3 31.9 27.2 4.4 0.5 30.6 2.9 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 11.9 6.4 3.7 3.8 5.7 6.7 5.8 11.8 2.9 5.9 9.0 5.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.2 54.9 35.7 37.7 53.5 59.1 84.3 56.6 12.1 84.1 44.0 13.0 LnGrp LOS E D D D D E F E B F D B Approach Vol, veh/h 951 761 1330 1563 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.0 51.8 56.2 47.1 Approach LOS D D E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 38.8 35.5 27.7 18.0 38.8 36.1 27.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 33.0 19.0 29.0 12.0 33.0 17.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 13.0 27.6 11.1 15.8 12.0 24.5 26.6 14.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.6 0.1 4.4 0.0 5.4 0.0 5.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.7 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-94 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' t r r Traffic Volume (vph) 54 55 82 179 325 82 Future Volume (vph) 54 55 82 179 325 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 1772 661 437 Travel Time (s) 30.2 11.3 7.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-95 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 15.4 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 100% 4 t r Vol Right, % r Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 55 82 179 325 82 Future Vol, veh/h 54 55 82 179 325 82 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 66 67 100 218 396 100 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 1 Approach EB 7 WB Degree of Util (X) SB 0.174 Opposing Approach WB 0.142 EB 6.375 6.262 5.552 Opposing Lanes 2 Convergence,Y/N 1 Yes 0 Yes Conflicting Approach Left SB 564 573 646 WB 703 Conflicting Lanes Left 2 4.001 0 4.04 2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Conflicting Approach Right 0.175 0.337 SB 0.142 EB 11.4 Conflicting Lanes Right 0 22.2 2 HCM Lane LOS 1 B HCM Control Delay 11.4 A 10.8 0.9 19.5 1.5 HCM LOS B B C Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 50% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 50% 100% 0% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 109 82 179 325 82 LT Vol 54 0 0 325 0 Through Vol 55 82 0 0 0 RT Vol 0 0 179 0 82 Lane Flow Rate 133 100 218 396 100 Geometry Grp 4 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.235 0.174 0.337 0.695 0.142 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.375 6.262 5.552 6.314 5.103 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 564 573 646 575 703 Service Time 4.417 4.001 3.291 4.04 2.83 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.236 0.175 0.337 0.689 0.142 HCM Control Delay 11.4 10.3 11.1 22.2 8.7 HCM Lane LOS B B B C A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.9 0.6 1.5 5.5 0.5 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-96 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 1� t r Traffic Volume (vph) 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Future Volume (vph) 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-97 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 98.9 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 42% 4 r 0% +T+ 0% 4% 1� 100% 50% t r Traffic Vol, veh/h 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Future Vol, veh/h 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 58 199 178 24 123 149 123 375 17 232 473 61 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Approach EB 10.813 10.075 WB Yes Yes NB Yes Yes SB Yes Yes Opposing Approach WB 321 306 EB 307 320 SB 358 Service Time NB 9.078 9.677 Opposing Lanes 1 9.04 8.513 2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.406 3 0.84 0.546 2 0.725 1.391 Conflicting Approach Left SB 21.9 137.6 NB 24.5 62.4 EB 207.7 14.7 WB C F Conflicting Lanes Left 3 F E 2 B HCM 95th -tile Q 2 15.5 6.1 1 8.1 4.9 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 2 HCM Control Delay 37.5 62.4 110 140.4 HCM LOS E F F F Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 23% 0% 8% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 96% 77% 0% 42% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 4% 0% 100% 50% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 108 345 226 157 260 204 416 54 LT Vol 108 0 51 0 21 204 0 0 Through Vol 0 330 175 0 108 0 416 0 RT Vol 0 15 0 157 131 0 0 54 Lane Flow Rate 123 392 257 178 295 232 473 61 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.384 1.167 0.779 0.501 0.887 0.697 1.356 0.164 Departure Headway (Hd) 11.944 11.378 11.977 11.118 11.833 11.34 10.813 10.075 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 303 321 306 326 307 320 340 358 Service Time 9.644 9.078 9.677 8.818 9.533 9.04 8.513 7.775 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.406 1.221 0.84 0.546 0.961 0.725 1.391 0.17 HCM Control Delay 21.9 137.6 46.6 24.5 62.4 36.4 207.7 14.7 HCM Lane LOS C F E C F E F B HCM 95th -tile Q 1.7 15.5 6.1 2.7 8.1 4.9 22.4 0.6 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn 1-98 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 1� t r Traffic Volume (vph) 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Future Volume (vph) 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 22.0 47.0 32.0 57.0 57.0 Total Split (%) 34.2% 34.2% 34.2% 34.2% 34.2% 18.3% 39.2% 26.7% 47.5% 47.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue 01 t Q 2 'R'• -10045 06 'R' 03 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-99 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1113 4 r 1118 0 0 1� 1807 1734 t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Future Volume (veh/h) 51 175 157 21 108 131 108 330 15 204 416 54 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 936 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 383 No 469 380 No 0 253 No 811 397 No 793 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 199 178 24 123 149 123 375 17 232 473 61 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 87 270 444 42 150 162 149 776 35 262 936 793 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, vehlh 175 938 1543 34 521 563 1734 1729 78 1734 1821 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 257 0 178 296 0 0 123 0 392 232 473 61 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1113 0 1543 1118 0 0 1734 0 1807 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 11.1 6.9 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 18.3 15.7 20.5 2.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.2 0.0 11.1 32.1 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 18.3 15.7 20.5 2.4 Prop In Lane 0.23 1.00 0.08 0.50 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 357 0 444 354 0 0 149 0 811 262 936 793 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.40 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.48 0.88 0.51 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 383 0 469 380 0 0 253 0 811 397 936 793 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.6 0.0 34.4 39.8 0.0 0.0 53.9 0.0 23.3 49.9 19.2 14.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.0 0.0 0.6 14.3 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 2.1 14.3 1.9 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.2 0.0 4.1 9.8 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 7.8 7.6 8.4 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.6 0.0 35.0 54.0 0.0 0.0 64.6 0.0 25.3 64.2 21.1 15.0 LnGrp LOS D A D D A A E A C E C B Approach Vol, veh/h 435 296 515 766 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.1 54.0 34.7 33.7 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.6 58.4 39.0 14.8 66.2 39.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.5 42.5 36.5 17.5 52.5 36.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 17.7 20.3 27.2 10.4 22.5 34.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.4 2.0 1.4 0.1 2.9 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.3 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. M Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r Traffic Volume (vph) 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Future Volume (vph) 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 0 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 5266 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 119.7 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. um HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 408.6 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 18% 21% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 4 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Future Vol, veh/h 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 132 240 83 88 223 83 117 624 96 71 723 152 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB F C WB 49 13.7 NB 43.3 1.7 SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1 HCM Control Delay 169.3 118 601.8 473.4 HCM LOS F F F F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 14% 29% 22% 9% 0% Vol Thru, % 75% 53% 57% 91% 0% Vol Right, % 11% 18% 21% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 628 341 295 595 114 LT Vol 88 99 66 53 0 Through Vol 468 180 167 542 0 RT Vol 72 62 62 0 114 Lane Flow Rate 837 455 393 793 152 Geometry Grp 5 2 2 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 2.253 1.21 1.043 2.154 0.381 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.786 15.574 16.582 13.548 12.753 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 293 236 224 278 284 Service Time 10.786 13.574 14.582 11.248 10.453 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.857 1.928 1.754 2.853 0.535 HCM Control Delay 601.8 169.3 118 559.7 23.1 HCM Lane LOS F F F F C HCM 95th -tile Q 49 13.7 9.8 43.3 1.7 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn 1-102 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Volume (vph) 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Future Volume (vph) 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 5266 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 119.7 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 15.0 71.4 12.6 69.0 Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 12.5% 59.5% 10.5% 57.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 01 t O 2 'R'- -1"04 0 5 06 rR'? The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-103 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1073 1� 1741 1057 0 1736 1734 0 1778 1734 0 1766 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Future Volume (veh/h) 99 180 62 66 167 62 88 468 72 53 542 114 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 172 No 457 160 No 456 152 No 1018 117 No 960 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 132 240 83 88 223 83 117 624 96 71 723 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 172 340 117 160 332 124 141 882 136 92 793 167 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.57 0.57 0.05 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow,vehlh 1073 1293 447 1057 1265 471 1734 1541 237 1734 1459 307 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 132 0 323 88 0 306 117 0 720 71 0 875 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1073 0 1741 1057 0 1736 1734 0 1778 1734 0 1766 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.6 0.0 20.2 9.9 0.0 18.9 8.0 0.0 34.9 4.9 0.0 53.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.5 0.0 20.2 30.0 0.0 18.9 8.0 0.0 34.9 4.9 0.0 53.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 172 0 457 160 0 456 141 0 1018 92 0 960 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.55 0.00 0.67 0.83 0.00 0.71 0.77 0.00 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 172 0 457 160 0 456 152 0 1018 117 0 960 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.6 0.0 40.1 53.7 0.0 39.6 54.3 0.0 18.5 56.1 0.0 24.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.4 0.0 4.9 4.0 0.0 3.8 28.6 0.0 4.2 21.3 0.0 14.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.8 0.0 8.9 2.8 0.0 8.5 4.5 0.0 13.9 2.6 0.0 23.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.0 0.0 45.0 57.7 0.0 43.4 82.9 0.0 22.6 77.4 0.0 39.0 LnGrp LOS E A D E A D F A C E A D Approach Vol, veh/h 455 394 837 946 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.1 46.6 31.0 41.9 Approach LOS D D C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.8 73.2 36.0 14.3 69.7 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.1 66.9 31.5 10.5 64.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.9 36.9 33.5 10.0 55.8 32.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.1 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. MI' Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Future Volume (vph) 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 280 150 150 150 105 150 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 25 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 1251 918 726 Travel Time (s) 71.6 17.1 12.5 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-105 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Intersection Intersection Delay, slvel141.7 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r 0% 46% 0% 100% 91% Vol Right, % ) tt 0% Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Future Vol, veh/h 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 128 34 89 139 76 32 570 77 77 684 22 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 Approach EB 8 8 WB Degree of Util (X) 0.086 NB 0.032 0.333 SB 0.801 0.194 Opposing Approach WB 0.591 Departure Headway (Hd) EB 9.297 11.303 10.77110.025 10.736 10.346 SB 9.756 Convergence,Y/N NB Yes Yes Opposing Lanes 1 Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes 3 364 395 2 336 360 Conflicting Approach Left SB 349 374 NB Service Time 7.604 EB 9.003 8.471 WB 8.436 8.046 Conflicting Lanes Left 3 7.456 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2 1.638 0.034 3 0.094 0.891 1 1.219 0.672 Conflicting Approach RighNB 13.5 313 SB 18.8 13.6 WB 15.5 103.8 EB HCM Lane LOS B Conflicting Lanes Right 2 B C 3 E C 1 D HCM 95th -tile Q 3 36.4 0.1 HCM Control Delay 17.5 0.3 6.7 45.3 14.3 3.6 298.8 70.2 HCM LOS C E F F Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 29% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 88% 0% 100% 0% 46% 0% 100% 91% Vol Right, % 0% 12% 0% 0% 100% 25% 0% 0% 9% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 28 563 10 111 30 264 67 397 217 LT Vol 28 0 10 0 0 77 67 0 0 Through Vol 0 496 0 111 0 121 0 397 198 RT Vol 0 67 0 0 30 66 0 0 19 Lane Flow Rate 32 647 11 128 34 303 77 456 250 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.086 1.619 0.032 0.333 0.083 0.801 0.194 1.086 0.591 Departure Headway (Hd) 9.904 9.297 11.303 10.77110.025 10.736 10.346 9.821 9.756 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 364 395 319 336 360 340 349 374 372 Service Time 7.604 6.997 9.003 8.471 7.725 8.436 8.046 7.521 7.456 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.088 1.638 0.034 0.381 0.094 0.891 0.221 1.219 0.672 HCM Control Delay 13.5 313 14.4 18.8 13.6 45.3 15.5 103.8 25.6 HCM Lane LOS B F B C B E C F D HCM 95th -tile Q 0.3 36.4 0.1 1.4 0.3 6.7 0.7 14.3 3.6 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn m Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Future Volume (vph) 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 280 150 150 150 105 150 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 25 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 1251 918 726 Travel Time (s) 71.6 17.1 12.5 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 11.8 65.0 16.0 69.2 69.2 Total Split (%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 9.8% 54.2% 13.3% 57.7% 57.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. } 01 I Q2 'R'- -1004 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-107 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1166 t r 1370 0 0 1734 0 1783 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 111 30 77 121 66 28 496 67 67 595 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 443 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 2098 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 266 No 444 440 No 0 106 No 1049 166 No 936 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 128 34 89 139 76 32 570 77 77 684 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 214 443 375 122 166 83 66 924 125 98 2098 936 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.04 0.59 0.59 0.06 0.61 0.61 Sat Flow,vehlh 1166 1821 1543 343 684 342 1734 1571 212 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 128 34 304 0 0 32 0 647 77 684 22 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1166 1821 1543 1370 0 0 1734 0 1783 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 6.9 2.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 28.1 5.3 11.6 0.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 6.9 2.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 28.1 5.3 11.6 0.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.25 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 214 443 375 372 0 0 66 0 1049 98 2098 936 V/C Ratio(X) 0.05 0.29 0.09 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.62 0.79 0.33 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 266 524 444 440 0 0 106 0 1049 166 2098 936 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.0 37.0 35.2 45.3 0.0 0.0 56.5 0.0 16.0 55.9 11.6 9.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.4 0.1 10.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 2.7 13.2 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.2 3.0 0.8 9.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.9 2.6 4.1 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.1 37.3 35.3 55.4 0.0 0.0 61.9 0.0 18.7 69.1 12.0 9.5 LnGrp LOS D D D E A A E A B E B A Approach Vol, veh/h 173 304 679 783 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.8 55.4 20.7 17.6 Approach LOS D E C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 75.1 33.7 9.1 77.2 33.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 60.5 34.5 7.3 64.7 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.3 30.1 8.9 4.2 13.6 28.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 4.2 0.7 0.0 4.7 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.3 HCM 6th LOS C The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. u Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� 4 r Traffic Volume (vph) 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Future Volume (vph) 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 150 150 150 150 150 150 700 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 100 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 672 623 677 775 Travel Time (s) 8.3 7.7 9.2 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. m HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 319.1 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vol Right, % 1� 0% 31% 21% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop 4 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Future Vol, veh/h 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 98 320 146 42 235 73 89 598 43 103 558 49 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB 2.5 0.374 WB 1.537 2.275 NB HCM Control Delay 512.8 SB 163.7 100.4 Opposing Approach WB HCM Lane LOS F EB F F SB C HCM 95th -tile Q NB 1.1 15.7 Opposing Lanes 1 0.4 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 139.1 100.4 512.8 370.4 HCM LOS F F F F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 12% 100% 0% 12% 16% 0% Vol Thru, % 82% 0% 69% 67% 84% 0% Vol Right, % 6% 0% 31% 21% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 664 89 424 318 602 45 LT Vol 81 89 0 38 94 0 Through Vol 544 0 291 214 508 0 RT Vol 39 0 133 66 0 45 Lane Flow Rate 730 98 466 349 662 49 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 2.051 0.276 1.221 0.983 1.788 0.123 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.892 13.829 13.057 16.266 12.728 11.896 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 292 262 284 227 291 303 Service Time 10.892 11.529 10.757 14.266 10.428 9.596 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.5 0.374 1.641 1.537 2.275 0.162 HCM Control Delay 512.8 21.7 163.7 100.4 396.9 16.3 HCM Lane LOS F C F F F C HCM 95th -tile Q 41.8 1.1 15.7 8.8 33.5 0.4 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-110 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Volume (vph) 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Future Volume (vph) 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 150 150 150 150 150 150 700 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 100 25 25 25 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 672 623 677 775 Travel Time (s) 8.3 7.7 9.2 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 15.0 60.0 16.0 61.0 Total Split (%) 36.7% 36.7% 36.7% 36.7% 12.5% 50.0% 13.3% 50.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 } 01 I Q2 'R' -1004 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1071 1� 1724 927 0 1747 1734 0 1799 1734 0 1795 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Future Volume (veh/h) 89 291 133 38 214 66 81 544 39 94 508 45 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 256 No 567 131 No 575 152 No 895 166 No 909 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 98 320 146 42 235 73 89 598 43 103 558 49 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 243 375 171 119 422 131 111 835 60 127 836 73 Arrive On Green 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow,vehlh 1071 1184 540 927 1333 414 1734 1679 121 1734 1650 145 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 98 0 466 42 0 308 89 0 641 103 0 607 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1071 0 1724 927 0 1747 1734 0 1799 1734 0 1795 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 0.0 30.4 5.3 0.0 17.6 6.1 0.0 33.4 7.0 0.0 30.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.6 0.0 30.4 35.7 0.0 17.6 6.1 0.0 33.4 7.0 0.0 30.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 243 0 546 119 0 553 111 0 895 127 0 909 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.00 0.85 0.35 0.00 0.56 0.80 0.00 0.72 0.81 0.00 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 256 0 567 131 0 575 152 0 895 166 0 909 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.4 0.0 38.4 55.1 0.0 34.0 55.4 0.0 23.5 54.8 0.0 22.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 11.7 1.8 0.0 1.1 18.9 0.0 4.9 20.0 0.0 3.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.6 0.0 13.7 1.3 0.0 7.2 3.2 0.0 14.1 3.7 0.0 12.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.5 0.0 50.1 56.9 0.0 35.1 74.3 0.0 28.4 74.8 0.0 26.0 LnGrp LOS D A D E A D E A C E A C Approach Vol, veh/h 564 350 730 710 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.5 37.7 34.0 33.0 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 64.2 42.5 12.2 65.3 42.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 55.5 39.5 10.5 56.5 39.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 9.0 35.4 32.4 8.1 32.3 37.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.7 1.7 0.0 3.6 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.0 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-112 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Future Volume (vph) 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 190 200 100 50 150 150 195 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 25 90 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 817 587 676 1348 Travel Time (s) 10.1 7.3 9.2 18.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-113 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveB30.8 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r 0% + r 0% 0% 100% ) t 11% Traffic Vol, veh/h 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Future Vol, veh/h 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 135 516 107 79 517 144 74 628 91 149 592 113 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 Approach EB 395 310 WB 8 8 NB 8 8 SB 8 7 Opposing Approach WB 7 Degree of Util (X) EB 0.483 1.777 SB 0.844 1.143 NB 0.451 1.14 Opposing Lanes 3 Departure Headway (Hd) 13.002 16.44115.86815.06516.96216.778 3 Convergence,Y/N Yes 3 Yes Yes 1 Yes Yes Conflicting Approach Left SB Yes Yes NB 285 221 EB 241 216 WB 228 223 Conflicting Lanes Left 3 239 Service Time 1 13.66 14.024 13.456 13.166 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 3 0.611 2.224 3 1.167 1.561 Conflicting Approach RighNB 0.668 1.695 SB HCM Control Delay 841 WB 401.4 25.6 EB 150 31.1 Conflicting Lanes Right 1 145.2 72.8 3 F D 3 D F 3 D D HCM Control Delay 282.9 F HCM 95th -tile Q 100.4 2.4 27.5 841 6.4 11.7 99.1 2.2 12.1 HCM LOS F F F F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLnlWBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 9% 100% 0% 0% 31% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 79% 0% 100% 0% 69% 100% 0% 0% 100% 64% Vol Right, % 11% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 36% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 682 116 444 92 216 297 124 128 339 267 LT Vol 64 116 0 0 68 0 0 128 0 0 Through Vol 540 0 444 0 148 297 0 0 339 170 RT Vol 78 0 0 92 0 0 124 0 0 97 Lane Flow Rate 793 135 516 107 252 345 144 149 395 310 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 2.79 0.483 1.777 0.347 0.844 1.143 0.45 0.451 1.14 0.874 Departure Headway (Hd) 13.002 16.44115.86815.06516.96216.778 15.96 16.324 15.756 15.466 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 285 221 232 241 216 221 228 223 233 239 Service Time 10.702 14.14113.56812.76514.66214.478 13.66 14.024 13.456 13.166 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.782 0.611 2.224 0.444 1.167 1.561 0.632 0.668 1.695 1.297 HCM Control Delay 841 33.6 401.4 25.6 72.2 150 31.1 31.8 145.2 72.8 HCM Lane LOS F D F D F F D D F F HCM 95th -tile Q 66.3 2.4 27.5 1.5 6.4 11.7 2.2 2.2 12.1 7.1 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\Unsig_Mod\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 tt r 1550 0 0 728 t 1722 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Future Volume (veh/h) 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 533 1.00 1.00 890 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 929 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 192 No 451 101 No 397 865 No 0 194 No 925 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 136 522 108 80 524 146 75 635 92 151 599 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 162 533 451 100 890 397 94 676 95 194 1558 296 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 3460 1543 114 1258 178 728 2901 551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 136 522 108 80 524 146 802 0 0 151 357 356 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1543 1550 0 0 728 1730 1722 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 34.1 6.4 5.5 15.9 9.3 45.2 0.0 0.0 4.7 14.4 14.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 34.1 6.4 5.5 15.9 9.3 59.7 0.0 0.0 64.5 14.4 14.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.11 1.00 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 162 533 451 100 890 397 865 0 0 194 929 925 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.98 0.24 0.80 0.59 0.37 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.38 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 192 533 451 101 890 397 865 0 0 194 929 925 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.5 42.1 32.3 55.8 39.0 36.6 26.7 0.0 0.0 35.4 16.2 16.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.8 33.7 0.3 34.3 1.0 0.6 17.3 0.0 0.0 25.8 1.2 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.9 19.3 2.3 3.3 6.5 3.4 23.7 0.0 0.0 5.8 5.6 5.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.4 75.8 32.6 90.1 40.0 37.1 44.1 0.0 0.0 61.2 17.4 17.4 LnGrp LOS E E C F D D D A A E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 766 750 802 864 Approach Delay, s/veh 70.0 44.8 44.1 25.1 Approach LOS E D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 69.0 11.4 39.6 69.0 15.7 35.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 64.4 7.0 35.1 64.4 13.3 28.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 61.7 7.5 36.1 66.5 11.3 17.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.3 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-115 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 With Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 tt r 1550 0 0 728 t 1722 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Future Volume (veh/h) 116 444 92 68 445 124 64 540 78 128 509 97 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 533 1.00 1.00 890 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 929 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 192 No 451 101 No 397 865 No 0 194 No 925 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 136 522 108 80 524 146 75 635 92 151 599 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 162 533 451 100 890 397 94 676 95 194 1558 296 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 3460 1543 114 1258 178 728 2901 551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 136 522 108 80 524 146 802 0 0 151 357 356 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1543 1550 0 0 728 1730 1722 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 34.1 6.4 5.5 15.9 9.3 45.2 0.0 0.0 4.7 14.4 14.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 34.1 6.4 5.5 15.9 9.3 59.7 0.0 0.0 64.5 14.4 14.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.11 1.00 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 162 533 451 100 890 397 865 0 0 194 929 925 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.98 0.24 0.80 0.59 0.37 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.38 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 192 533 451 101 890 397 865 0 0 194 929 925 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.5 42.1 32.3 55.8 39.0 36.6 26.7 0.0 0.0 35.4 16.2 16.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.8 33.7 0.3 34.3 1.0 0.6 17.3 0.0 0.0 25.8 1.2 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.9 19.3 2.3 3.3 6.5 3.4 23.7 0.0 0.0 5.8 5.6 5.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.4 75.8 32.6 90.1 40.0 37.1 44.1 0.0 0.0 61.2 17.4 17.4 LnGrp LOS E E C F D D D A A E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 766 750 802 864 Approach Delay, s/veh 70.0 44.8 44.1 25.1 Approach LOS E D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 69.0 11.4 39.6 69.0 15.7 35.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 64.4 7.0 35.1 64.4 13.3 28.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 61.7 7.5 36.1 66.5 11.3 17.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.3 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r t t Traffic Volume (vph) 60 516 58 54 424 126 50 723 85 137 589 43 Future Volume (vph) 60 516 58 54 424 126 50 723 85 137 589 43 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 210 120 220 150 200 150 170 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 710 640 1322 436 Travel Time (s) 9.7 8.7 18.0 5.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 1 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 11.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 12.0 11.5 22.0 12.0 22.5 Total Split (%) 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 20.0% 19.2% 36.7% 20.0% 37.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 14.6 (24%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 1 102 'R' -1"04 i35 'R'�5 i33 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-117 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 810 t r 791 t r 1734 t 1755 1734 t 1778 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 516 58 54 424 126 50 723 85 137 589 43 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 516 58 54 424 126 50 723 85 137 589 43 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 668 1.00 1.00 668 1.00 1.00 547 1.00 1.00 533 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 238 No 566 180 No 747 217 No 555 231 No 548 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 67 573 64 60 471 140 56 803 94 152 654 48 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 238 668 566 180 668 747 217 986 115 203 1008 74 Arrive On Green 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.32 0.31 0.12 0.31 0.30 Sat Flow, vehlh 810 1821 1543 791 1821 1543 1734 3120 365 1734 3268 240 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 67 573 64 60 471 140 56 445 452 152 346 356 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 810 1821 1543 791 1821 1543 1734 1730 1755 1734 1730 1778 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 17.4 1.6 4.6 13.3 3.1 1.8 14.2 14.2 5.1 10.4 10.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.9 17.4 1.6 22.0 13.3 3.1 1.8 14.2 14.2 5.1 10.4 10.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.13 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 238 668 566 180 668 747 217 547 555 203 533 548 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.86 0.11 0.33 0.71 0.19 0.26 0.81 0.81 0.75 0.65 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 238 668 566 180 668 747 217 547 555 231 533 548 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.9 17.6 12.6 27.7 16.2 8.8 23.7 18.9 18.9 25.6 17.9 18.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 10.8 0.1 1.1 3.4 0.1 0.6 12.5 12.4 11.0 6.0 5.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.8 7.7 0.5 0.8 4.9 0.8 0.7 6.5 6.6 2.4 4.2 4.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.5 28.4 12.6 28.8 19.6 8.9 24.4 31.4 31.3 36.6 23.9 23.8 LnGrp LOS C C B C B A C C C D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 704 671 953 854 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 18.2 31.0 26.2 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 23.0 26.0 11.5 22.5 26.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 17.5 21.5 7.0 18.0 21.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.1 16.2 19.9 3.8 12.4 24.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.0 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-118 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 55 206 10 0 177 12 16 245 18 7 217 57 Future Volume (vph) 55 206 10 0 177 12 16 245 18 7 217 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 5266 1079 1013 510 Travel Time (s) 71.8 14.7 12.6 6.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-119 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 23.4 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6% 20% 0% 2% Vol Thru, % 88% 76% 94% 77% Vol Right, % 6% 4% Traffic Vol, veh/h 55 206 10 0 177 12 16 245 18 7 217 57 Future Vol, veh/h 55 206 10 0 177 12 16 245 18 7 217 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 70 261 13 0 224 15 20 310 23 9 275 72 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB 2.7 5.3 WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 24.8 17.9 24.8 24.4 HCM LOS C C C C Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 6% 20% 0% 2% Vol Thru, % 88% 76% 94% 77% Vol Right, % 6% 4% 6% 20% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 279 271 189 281 LT Vol 16 55 0 7 Through Vol 245 206 177 217 RT Vol 18 10 12 57 Lane Flow Rate 353 343 239 356 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.694 0.687 0.498 0.691 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.078 7.208 7.497 6.992 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 509 501 478 516 Service Time 5.153 5.282 5.582 5.065 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.694 0.685 0.5 0.69 HCM Control Delay 24.8 24.8 17.9 24.4 HCM Lane LOS C C C C HCM 95th -tile Q 5.3 5.2 2.7 5.3 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\06 - EAPC (2026) PM.syn 1-120 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 104 59 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 104 59 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25 Link Distance (ft) 207 1772 380 Travel Time (s) 3.5 30.2 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-121 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 104 59 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 104 59 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 113 64 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 113 0 - 0 57 57 Stage 1 - - - - 57 - Stage 2 - - 0 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1476 - 950 1009 Stage 1 - - 966 - Stage 2 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1476 - 950 1009 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 950 - Stage 1 - 966 Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.1 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1476 - - 950 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.068 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 9.1 HCM Lane LOS A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-122 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt tt Traffic Volume (vph) 203 17 56 347 509 299 Future Volume (vph) 203 17 56 347 509 299 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 499 880 169 Travel Time (s) 13.6 12.0 2.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 22.6 22.6 11.6 37.4 25.8 Total Split (%) 37.7% 37.7% 19.3% 62.3% 43.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 19: Madison St. & Main Access t02'R' 04 05 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-123 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Improvements t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 r 1734 tt tt 1599 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 203 17 56 347 509 299 Future Volume (veh/h) 203 17 56 347 509 299 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 2386 934 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 466 205 No No 864 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 221 18 61 377 553 325 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 278 248 129 2386 1133 665 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.69 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 1734 3551 2189 1232 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 221 18 61 377 456 422 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1734 1730 1730 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.4 0.6 2.0 2.3 9.9 9.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 0.6 2.0 2.3 9.9 9.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 248 129 2386 934 864 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.07 0.47 0.16 0.49 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 523 466 205 2386 934 864 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.2 21.4 26.6 3.2 8.6 8.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.1 0.1 2.7 0.1 1.8 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.3 0.6 0.8 0.3 2.9 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.3 21.5 29.3 3.4 10.4 10.6 LnGrp LOS C C C A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 239 438 878 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.7 7.0 10.5 Approach LOS C A B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 45.9 14.1 9.0 36.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.9 18.1 7.1 21.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.3 9.4 4.0 11.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 2.2 0.5 0.0 3.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.3 HCM 6th LOS B The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-124 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-125 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� tt Traffic Volume (vph) 277 8 28 232 25 13 Future Volume (vph) 277 8 28 232 25 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 50 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 403 335 383 Travel Time (s) 5.5 4.6 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-125 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� HCM Lane LOS ) tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - Traffic Vol, veh/h 277 8 28 232 25 13 Future Vol, veh/h 277 8 28 232 25 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 50 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 301 9 30 252 27 14 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 310 0 492 306 Stage 1 - - - - 306 - Stage 2 - 186 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 6.63 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.83 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 3.519 3.319 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1249 521 733 Stage 1 - 746 - Stage 2 - 828 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1249 508 733 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 585 - Stage 1 - 746 Stage 2 - 808 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.9 11.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 628 - 1249 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.066 - 0.024 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 - 8 HCM Lane LOS B - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.1 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-126 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-127 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 274 16 0 260 0 17 Future Volume (vph) 274 16 0 260 0 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 335 276 233 Travel Time (s) 4.6 3.8 6.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-127 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� 0.1 - - tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 274 16 0 260 0 17 Future Vol, veh/h 274 16 0 260 0 17 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 298 17 0 283 0 18 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - 307 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy - - 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.319 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 732 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 732 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 732 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-128 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 35 0 550 773 34 Future Volume (vph) 0 35 0 550 773 34 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 210 224 288 Travel Time (s) 5.7 3.1 3.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-129 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 35 0 550 773 34 Future Vol, veh/h 0 35 0 550 773 34 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 38 0 598 840 37 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 439 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.94 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 566 0 - Stage 1 0 - 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 566 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 566 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.067 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.8 - HCM Lane LOS B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-130 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t t Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1 1 233 406 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 1 1 233 406 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 25 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 306 597 522 Travel Time (s) 8.3 10.2 8.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-131 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y *'+ t Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 233 406 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 233 406 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 1 253 441 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 571 221 442 0 - 0 Stage 1 442 - - - - - Stage 2 129 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 451 783 1114 - Stage 1 615 - - - Stage 2 883 - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 451 783 1114 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 451 - - - Stage 1 614 - - Stage 2 883 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.3 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1114 - 572 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 11.3 - HCM Lane LOS A A B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1-132 Queuing and Blocking Report EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour Intersection: 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 56 Average Queue (ft) 34 95th Queue (ft) 59 Link Distance (ft) 352 Upstream Blk Time (%) 65 Queuing Penalty (veh) 113 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 13 Storage Blk Time (%) 127 Queuing Penalty (veh) 21 Intersection: 19: Madison St. & Main Access Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB B51 Directions Served L R L T T T TR T Maximum Queue (ft) 178 132 44 65 56 113 124 13 Average Queue (ft) 127 26 21 35 22 59 69 2 95th Queue (ft) 191 130 52 71 57 120 133 21 Link Distance (ft) 452 848 848 96 96 183 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 6 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 15 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 Intersection: 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 Movement WB NB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 20 26 Average Queue (ft) 2 7 95th Queue (ft) 15 28 Link Distance (ft) 348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Club at Coral Mountain Urban Crossroads, Inc. F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn SimTraffic Report 1-133 Queuing and Blocking Report EAPC (2026) AM Peak hour Intersection: 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 Movement NB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 26 Average Queue (ft) 4 95th Queue (ft) 22 Link Distance (ft) 199 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 22: Madison St. & Proiect Access 3 Movement EB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 24 Average Queue (ft) 7 95th Queue (ft) 28 Link Distance (ft) 164 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access Movement EB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 15 Average Queue (ft) 2 95th Queue (ft) 15 Link Distance (ft) 259 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 14 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) AM Imps.syn 1-134 Urban Crossroads, Inc. SimTraffic Report Queuing and Blocking Report EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour Intersection: 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 49 Average Queue (ft) 31 95th Queue (ft) 56 Link Distance (ft) 352 Upstream Blk Time (%) 66 Queuing Penalty (veh) 159 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 13 54 Storage Blk Time (%) 98 Queuing Penalty (veh) 43 Intersection: 19: Madison St. & Main Access Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB B51 B51 Directions Served L R L T T T TR T T Maximum Queue (ft) 141 71 76 66 47 159 180 13 54 Average Queue (ft) 98 22 43 31 18 92 114 2 11 95th Queue (ft) 154 86 76 64 49 164 188 22 49 Link Distance (ft) 452 848 848 105 105 173 173 Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 33 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 7 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 Intersection: 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 Movement WB NB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 26 51 Average Queue (ft) 8 23 95th Queue (ft) 30 55 Link Distance (ft) 348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 The Wave - Coral Mountain Urban Crossroads, Inc. F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn SimTraffic Report 1-135 Queuing and Blocking Report EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour Intersection: 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) EB NB TR R 20 34 3 15 25 40 285 199 Intersection: 22: Madison St. & Proiect Access 3 Movement EB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 36 Average Queue (ft) 20 95th Queue (ft) 46 Link Distance (ft) 164 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 55 The Wave - Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn 1-136 Urban Crossroads, Inc. SimTraffic Report Queuing and Blocking Report EAPC (2026) PM Peak hour Intersection: 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access Movement EB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 10 Average Queue (ft) 2 95th Queue (ft) 13 Link Distance (ft) 265 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) The Wave - Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\106 - EAPC (2026) PM Imps.syn 1-137 Urban Crossroads, Inc. SimTraffic Report URBAN CROSSROADS Club at Coral Mountain This Page Intentionally Left Blank 15455-03 Club at Coral Mtn Supplemental LOS Assessment.docx HM URBAN CROSSROADS ATTACHMENT 2: Club at Coral Mountain 2040 WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 15455-03 Club at Coral Mtn Supplemental LOS Assessment.docx URBAN CROSSROADS This Page Intentionally Left Blank 15455-03 Club at Coral Mtn Supplemental LOS Assessment.docx Club at Coral Mountain Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Future Volume (vph) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 32.5 43.4 11.6 22.5 32.4 11.5 32.6 32.6 32.4 53.5 53.5 Total Split (%) 27.1% 36.2% 9.7% 18.8% 27.0% 9.6% 27.2% 27.2% 27.0% 44.6% 44.6% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 87.9 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 t02'R' 1v X04 06 1P 05 0 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-1 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1716 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Future Volume (veh/h) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 407 1.00 1.00 274 1.00 1.00 810 1.00 1.00 1413 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 405 No 556 103 No 743 272 No 361 574 No 630 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 329 187 39 56 192 141 41 663 123 327 1102 146 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 357 674 138 86 274 633 272 810 361 574 1413 630 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.33 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 2862 585 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 329 112 114 56 192 141 41 663 123 327 1102 146 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1716 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.3 6.3 6.6 3.8 6.5 2.9 2.4 21.8 6.7 18.6 33.2 3.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.3 6.3 6.6 3.8 6.5 2.9 2.4 21.8 6.7 18.6 33.2 3.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 357 407 404 86 274 633 272 810 361 574 1413 630 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.27 0.28 0.65 0.70 0.22 0.15 0.82 0.34 0.57 0.78 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 405 561 556 103 519 743 272 810 361 574 1413 630 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.7 37.5 37.6 56.0 53.9 8.8 43.7 43.5 26.8 33.1 30.8 6.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.9 0.4 0.4 10.7 3.3 0.2 0.3 9.0 2.5 1.3 4.3 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 11.7 2.6 2.7 1.9 2.9 1.0 1.0 9.9 3.1 7.7 13.7 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.6 37.9 38.0 66.8 57.1 9.0 43.9 52.5 29.4 34.4 35.1 7.3 LnGrp LOS E D D E E A D D C C D A Approach Vol, veh/h 555 389 827 1575 Approach Delay, s/veh 57.9 41.1 48.7 32.4 Approach LOS E D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.2 32.6 10.4 32.7 23.3 53.5 29.2 14.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.9 28.1 7.1 38.9 7.0 49.0 28.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 20.6 23.8 5.8 8.6 4.4 35.2 24.3 8.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.6 1.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 6.3 0.4 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.7 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-2 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Future Volume (vph) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 22.0 30.4 14.1 22.5 38.0 11.7 37.5 37.5 38.0 63.8 63.8 Total Split (%) 18.3% 25.3% 11.8% 18.8% 31.7% 9.8% 31.3% 31.3% 31.7% 53.2% 53.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 87.9 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 t0 2 'R' 01 1 ? -1"04 06 'R' 05 - 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1682 tib 1716 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Future Volume (veh/h) 322 183 38 55 188 138 40 650 121 320 1080 143 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 252 1.00 1.00 274 1.00 1.00 952 1.00 1.00 1710 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 491 No 370 139 No 818 279 No 424 659 No 763 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 329 187 39 56 192 141 41 663 123 327 1102 146 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 390 417 85 86 274 708 279 952 424 659 1710 763 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.38 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow,vehlh 3365 2862 585 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 329 112 114 56 192 141 41 663 123 327 1102 146 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1682 1730 1716 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.5 7.1 7.3 3.8 6.5 1.9 2.4 20.6 6.2 17.3 28.4 3.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.5 7.1 7.3 3.8 6.5 1.9 2.4 20.6 6.2 17.3 28.4 3.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 390 252 250 86 274 708 279 952 424 659 1710 763 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.44 0.46 0.65 0.70 0.20 0.15 0.70 0.29 0.50 0.64 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 491 373 370 139 519 818 279 952 424 659 1710 763 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.0 46.8 46.9 56.0 53.9 8.0 43.3 39.0 23.5 28.4 22.5 6.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.4 1.2 1.3 8.2 3.3 0.1 0.2 4.2 1.7 0.6 1.9 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.2 3.0 3.1 1.8 2.9 1.1 1.0 8.9 2.9 6.9 11.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.4 48.0 48.2 64.2 57.1 8.1 43.5 43.2 25.2 29.0 24.4 7.1 LnGrp LOS E D D E E A D D C C C A Approach Vol, veh/h 555 389 827 1575 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.6 40.4 40.6 23.8 Approach LOS E D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 50.1 37.5 10.4 22.0 23.8 63.8 18.4 14.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.5 33.0 9.6 25.9 7.2 59.3 17.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 19.3 22.6 5.8 9.3 4.4 30.4 13.5 8.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.8 3.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 8.7 0.4 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.3 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r A tt r tt Traffic Volume (vph) 167 167 1 1090 154 372 1367 Future Volume (vph) 167 167 1 1090 154 372 1367 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 140 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 767 818 Travel Time (s) 71.6 10.5 11.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Detector Phase 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 24.0 24.0 11.5 54.0 54.0 42.0 84.5 Total Split (%) 20.0% 20.0% 9.6% 45.0% 45.0% 35.0% 70.4% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. 2'R' 013 7 06 ► 05 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-5 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Movement WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1734 r A tt r 1734 tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 167 167 1 1090 154 372 1367 Future Volume (veh/h) 167 167 1 1090 154 372 1367 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1442 1.00 1.00 2773 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 257 No 643 609 No Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 170 170 1112 157 380 1395 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 229 204 1442 643 609 2773 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.35 0.80 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 3551 1543 1734 3551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 170 170 1112 157 380 1395 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1730 1543 1734 1730 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.3 12.9 33.1 5.1 21.8 16.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.3 12.9 33.1 5.1 21.8 16.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 229 204 1442 643 609 2773 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.83 0.77 0.24 0.62 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 289 257 1442 643 609 2773 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.1 50.8 30.1 9.6 32.3 4.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.3 16.6 4.1 0.9 2.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.2 5.7 13.6 2.8 9.0 3.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.4 67.4 34.1 10.6 34.3 4.6 LnGrp LOS E E C B C A Approach Vol, veh/h 340 1269 1775 Approach Delay, s/veh 62.4 31.2 11.0 Approach LOS E C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.2 54.0 100.2 19.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.5 49.5 80.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 23.8 35.1 18.1 14.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.9 6.5 13.5 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-6 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 84 583 1183 139 319 160 421 964 74 228 1012 57 Future Volume (vph) 84 583 1183 139 319 160 421 964 74 228 1012 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 160 150 910 150 160 120 305 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 80 120 120 100 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5080 840 924 2398 Travel Time (s) 63.0 10.4 12.6 32.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 17.2 29.0 18.2 30.0 25.2 23.6 47.6 47.6 25.2 49.2 Total Split (%) 14.3% 24.2% 15.2% 25.0% 21.0% 19.7% 39.7% 39.7% 21.0% 41.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 t0 2 'R' 1 ? -1"04 06 05 _ 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-7 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1734 t 1787 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 84 583 1183 139 319 160 421 964 74 228 1012 57 Future Volume (veh/h) 84 583 1183 139 319 160 421 964 74 228 1012 57 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 662 1.00 1.00 782 1.00 1.00 1243 1.00 1.00 644 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 184 No 198 No 661 637 No 554 351 No 666 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 86 595 0 142 326 163 430 984 76 233 1033 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 108 662 0.0 168 782 661 637 1243 554 351 1241 70 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.19 0.00 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.20 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 1734 3331 187 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 86 595 0 142 326 163 430 984 76 233 537 554 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1734 1730 1787 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 20.2 0.0 9.7 9.7 1.4 14.3 30.6 2.9 14.8 33.8 33.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 20.2 0.0 9.7 9.7 1.4 14.3 30.6 2.9 14.8 33.8 33.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 108 662 168 782 661 637 1243 554 351 644 666 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.90 0.85 0.42 0.25 0.68 0.79 0.14 0.66 0.83 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 184 706 198 782 661 637 1243 554 351 644 666 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.5 47.4 0.0 53.3 39.7 11.2 45.2 34.4 13.9 44.1 34.2 34.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 1.6 0.0 24.2 0.4 0.2 2.8 5.2 0.5 4.6 12.0 11.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.5 8.4 0.0 5.2 4.0 1.7 6.0 13.0 1.4 6.6 15.5 15.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.7 49.0 0.0 77.5 40.1 11.4 48.0 39.6 14.4 48.7 46.2 45.9 LnGrp LOS E D E D B D D B D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 681 A 631 1490 1324 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.9 41.1 40.8 46.5 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.8 47.6 16.1 27.5 27.2 49.2 12.0 31.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.7 43.1 13.7 24.5 19.1 44.7 12.7 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 16.8 32.6 11.7 22.2 16.3 35.9 7.9 11.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 4.6 0.1 0.8 0.5 4.1 0.1 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn no Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 100 748 122 87 622 137 236 921 65 173 1009 115 Future Volume (vph) 100 748 122 87 622 137 236 921 65 173 1009 115 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 435 50 200 325 160 160 255 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 105 120 140 160 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 1169 798 1237 1379 Travel Time (s) 17.7 9.9 16.9 18.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 31.5 31.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 16.0 40.0 40.0 15.0 39.0 39.0 17.0 49.0 49.0 16.0 48.0 48.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 33.3% 33.3% 12.5% 32.5% 32.5% 14.2% 40.8% 40.8% 13.3% 40.0% 40.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 65.5 (55%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 t02 01 4,0,03 -1"04'R'- i35 05 - 03 'R'• Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-9 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 748 122 87 622 137 236 921 65 173 1009 115 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 748 122 87 622 137 236 921 65 173 1009 115 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1160 1.00 1.00 1130 1.00 1.00 1283 1.00 1.00 1254 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 166 No 517 152 No 504 350 No 572 322 No 559 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 763 124 89 635 140 241 940 66 177 1030 117 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 126 1160 517 111 1130 504 297 1283 572 269 1254 559 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.37 0.37 0.08 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 763 124 89 635 140 241 940 66 177 1030 117 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 22.6 5.3 6.1 18.2 6.2 8.4 28.2 2.6 6.1 32.4 4.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 22.6 5.3 6.1 18.2 6.2 8.4 28.2 2.6 6.1 32.4 4.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 126 1160 517 111 1130 504 297 1283 572 269 1254 559 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.66 0.24 0.80 0.56 0.28 0.81 0.73 0.12 0.66 0.82 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 166 1160 517 152 1130 504 350 1283 572 322 1254 559 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.8 34.0 16.4 55.4 33.3 17.7 53.7 32.6 15.1 53.6 34.7 15.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.7 2.9 1.1 18.9 2.0 1.4 11.7 3.7 0.4 3.7 6.1 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.7 9.6 2.5 3.1 7.5 3.0 3.9 11.7 1.2 2.6 13.9 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.5 37.0 17.5 74.3 35.3 19.1 65.4 36.3 15.5 57.3 40.8 16.4 LnGrp LOS E D B E D B E D B E D B Approach Vol, veh/h 989 864 1247 1324 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.4 36.7 40.8 40.9 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 49.0 12.2 44.7 15.1 48.0 13.2 43.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 44.5 10.5 35.5 12.5 43.5 11.5 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 8.1 30.2 8.1 24.6 10.4 34.4 9.0 20.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 5.2 0.0 3.9 0.2 4.5 0.0 3.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.5 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-10 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r )) ttt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 165 546 86 39 626 124 225 895 82 296 1250 253 Future Volume (vph) 165 546 86 39 626 124 225 895 82 296 1250 253 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 210 300 240 290 220 200 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 579 1049 1270 550 Travel Time (s) 8.8 14.3 17.3 7.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 7 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 11.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 20.0 40.4 40.4 11.6 32.0 21.9 15.0 46.1 46.1 21.9 53.0 53.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 33.7% 33.7% 9.7% 26.7% 18.3% 12.5% 38.4% 38.4% 18.3% 44.2% 44.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max None None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 77.7 (65%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue 1 2 'R'- ■ 04 03 05 06 'R' �03 i3 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-11 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r )) ttt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 165 546 86 39 626 124 225 895 82 296 1250 253 Future Volume (veh/h) 165 546 86 39 626 124 225 895 82 296 1250 253 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1104 1.00 1.00 865 1.00 1.00 1724 1.00 1.00 1398 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 224 No 492 103 No 604 294 No 535 488 No 624 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 168 557 88 40 639 127 230 913 84 302 1276 258 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 194 1104 492 75 865 604 282 1724 535 476 1398 624 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.38 0.38 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.17 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 4972 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 168 557 88 40 639 127 230 913 84 302 1276 258 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1657 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.4 14.8 3.5 2.7 19.9 1.5 8.0 16.5 3.3 10.0 40.9 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.4 14.8 3.5 2.7 19.9 1.5 8.0 16.5 3.3 10.0 40.9 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194 1104 492 75 865 604 282 1724 535 476 1398 624 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.50 0.18 0.54 0.74 0.21 0.81 0.53 0.16 0.63 0.91 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 224 1104 492 103 865 604 294 1724 535 488 1398 624 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.1 29.8 15.6 55.7 38.5 10.3 53.0 27.7 16.2 46.9 28.9 10.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.6 1.6 0.8 5.9 5.6 0.8 15.5 1.2 0.6 2.6 10.6 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.1 5.9 1.7 1.3 8.4 1.3 3.8 6.0 1.5 4.1 16.5 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.7 31.4 16.4 61.6 44.1 11.1 68.6 28.9 16.8 49.5 39.5 12.3 LnGrp LOS E C B E D B E C B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 813 806 1227 1836 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.2 39.7 35.5 37.3 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.7 42.8 14.6 53.0 17.9 34.5 21.5 46.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 35.9 10.5 48.5 15.5 27.5 17.4 41.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.7 16.8 10.0 42.9 13.4 21.9 12.0 18.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.9 0.1 2.1 0.5 6.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.6 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-12 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t rr tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 8 10 13 43 8 771 5 249 29 1778 194 27 Future Volume (vph) 8 10 13 43 8 771 5 249 29 1778 194 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 110 110 140 140 150 150 240 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 0 110 90 140 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 531 5080 436 1277 Travel Time (s) 6.6 63.0 5.4 15.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 63.0 22.5 23.0 23.0 63.0 63.5 63.5 Total Split (%) 9.6% 18.8% 18.8% 9.6% 18.8% 52.5% 18.8% 19.2% 19.2% 52.5% 52.9% 52.9% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max C -Max C -Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 22.5 (19%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 1 10 2 'R'. V1 i? --IW04 06 s33 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-13 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 t rr 1734 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 10 13 43 8 771 5 249 29 1778 194 27 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 10 13 43 8 771 5 249 29 1778 194 27 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 106 1.00 1.00 163 1.00 1.00 533 1.00 1.00 1701 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 101 No 232 101 No 2017 442 No 238 1994 No 759 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 10 13 44 8 787 5 254 30 1814 198 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 24 106 90 78 163 1853 442 533 238 1994 1701 759 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.26 0.15 0.15 0.59 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 2716 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 10 13 44 8 787 5 254 30 1814 198 28 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1358 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.6 0.6 3.0 0.5 2.5 0.3 8.0 1.7 57.2 3.7 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.6 0.6 3.0 0.5 2.5 0.3 8.0 1.7 57.2 3.7 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 24 106 90 78 163 1853 442 533 238 1994 1701 759 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.09 0.14 0.57 0.05 0.42 0.01 0.48 0.13 0.91 0.12 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 273 232 101 273 2017 442 533 238 1994 1701 759 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.6 53.5 22.6 56.2 50.0 3.3 33.4 46.3 32.2 21.6 16.4 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 0.4 0.7 4.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 3.0 1.1 7.7 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.2 1.4 0.1 3.5 0.8 20.9 1.4 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.8 53.9 23.4 60.7 50.0 3.4 33.4 49.4 33.3 29.3 16.6 10.9 LnGrp LOS E D C E D A C D C C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 31 839 289 2040 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.4 6.9 47.4 27.8 Approach LOS D A D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 75.6 23.0 9.9 11.5 35.1 63.5 6.1 15.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 58.5 18.5 7.0 18.0 18.0 59.0 7.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 59.2 10.0 5.0 2.6 2.3 5.7 2.5 4.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.2 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-14 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r r r r Traffic Volume (vph) 140 572 664 59 515 428 336 592 60 390 1106 187 Future Volume (vph) 140 572 664 59 515 428 336 592 60 390 1106 187 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 55 Link Distance (ft) 709 813 334 462 Travel Time (s) 9.7 11.1 4.6 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-15 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. MITIG8 - 2040WP AM Thu May 25, 2023 19:33:00 Page 1-1 Club at Coral Mountain TIA (JN:15455) 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report FHWA Roundabout Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.9 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Lanes: 2 2 3 3 Volume Module: Base Vol: 336 592 60 390 1106 187 140 572 664 59 515 428 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 336 592 60 390 1106 187 140 572 664 59 515 428 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 336 592 60 390 1106 187 140 572 664 59 515 428 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.00 PHF Volume: 343 604 61 398 1129 191 143 584 0 60 526 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 343 604 61 398 1129 191 143 584 0 60 526 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 343 604 61 398 1129 191 143 584 0 60 526 0 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I PCE Module: AutoPCE: 343 604 61 398 1129 191 143 584 0 60 526 0 TruckPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ComboPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BicyclePCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adj Volume: 343 604 61 398 1129 191 143 584 0 60 526 0 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours << CircVolume: 398 343 1527 947 MaxVolume: 2137 2177 xxxxxx xxxxxx PedVolume: 0 0 0 0 AdjMaxVol: 2137 2177 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachVol: 1008 1717 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachV/C: 0.47 0.79 1.00 1.00 ApproachDel: 3.2 7.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: A A Queue: 2.6 9.6 xxxx xxxx Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 2-16 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r ) tt ) tt Traffic Volume (vph) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 1047 13 40 1657 51 Future Volume (vph) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 1047 13 40 1657 51 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 160 0 180 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 25 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 509 561 1820 1343 Travel Time (s) 13.9 15.3 22.6 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 40.5 18.0 39.5 Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 54.0 18.0 54.0 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 15.0% 45.0% 15.0% 45.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None C -Min Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 30 (25%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo } i31 102 R' -11"04 00 5 i3,3,%'. 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-17 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 27 4 r 76 4 r ) tt 1810 ) tt 1794 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 1047 13 40 1657 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 37 1 2 4 1 16 13 1047 13 40 1657 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 2137 1.00 1.00 2268 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 388 No 540 406 No 540 173 No 1167 173 No 1227 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 38 1 2 4 1 16 13 1068 13 41 1691 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 62 1 182 55 8 182 61 3265 40 129 3391 104 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.64 0.64 0.15 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow,vehlh 19 7 1543 10 67 1543 1734 5063 62 1734 4956 152 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 39 0 2 5 0 16 13 699 382 41 1131 612 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 27 0 1543 76 0 1543 1734 1657 1810 1734 1657 1794 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 11.4 11.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.2 0.0 0.1 14.1 0.0 1.1 0.9 11.4 11.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 62 0 182 63 0 182 61 2137 1167 129 2268 1227 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.09 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.50 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 388 0 540 406 0 540 173 2137 1167 173 2268 1227 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 0.47 0.47 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.7 0.0 46.7 47.6 0.0 47.2 56.3 9.6 9.6 48.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.9 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 3.7 0.4 0.7 1.4 0.4 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.4 3.6 4.0 1.1 0.1 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.6 0.0 46.8 48.7 0.0 47.6 59.9 10.0 10.3 49.7 0.4 0.7 LnGrp LOS E A D D A D E A B D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 41 21 1094 1784 Approach Delay, s/veh 78.0 47.9 10.7 1.6 Approach LOS E D B A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.9 84.8 20.3 10.2 89.5 20.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 46.5 42.0 12.0 46.5 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.5 13.4 16.2 2.9 2.0 16.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 14.3 0.3 0.0 30.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.4 HCM 6th LOS A Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-18 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 256 347 81 236 390 385 140 857 108 359 1440 362 Future Volume (vph) 256 347 81 236 390 385 140 857 108 359 1440 362 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 245 100 105 0 360 220 280 230 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 45 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 693 995 1343 697 Travel Time (s) 9.5 15.1 16.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 18.0 31.5 31.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (s) 18.0 37.0 37.0 20.0 39.0 39.0 18.0 41.0 41.0 22.0 45.0 45.0 Total Split (%) 15.0% 30.8% 30.8% 16.7% 32.5% 32.5% 15.0% 34.2% 34.2% 18.3% 37.5% 37.5% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Min C -Min C -Min None C -Min C -Min None None None None None None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 t0 2 01 ? 4 rR'- 05 1313 ry. Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-19 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1682 tt r 1682 tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 256 347 81 236 390 385 140 857 108 359 1440 362 Future Volume (veh/h) 256 347 81 236 390 385 140 857 108 359 1440 362 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 916 1.00 1.00 916 1.00 1.00 1116 1.00 1.00 1547 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 336 No 408 393 No 408 173 No 431 584 No 482 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 261 354 83 241 398 393 143 874 110 366 1469 369 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 336 916 408 336 916 408 172 1116 346 584 1547 480 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.26 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow,vehlh 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 1734 4972 1543 3365 4972 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 261 354 83 241 398 393 143 874 110 366 1469 369 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1734 1657 1543 1682 1657 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 8.7 4.2 8.2 10.1 17.7 9.6 19.0 4.6 11.5 34.0 23.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 8.7 4.2 8.2 10.1 17.7 9.6 19.0 4.6 11.5 34.0 23.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 336 916 408 336 916 408 172 1116 346 584 1547 480 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.39 0.20 0.72 0.43 0.96 0.83 0.78 0.32 0.63 0.95 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 336 916 408 393 916 408 173 1388 431 584 1554 482 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.7 29.2 27.9 49.4 29.6 12.6 50.1 37.2 17.4 41.0 31.1 28.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.4 1.2 1.1 3.8 1.5 36.0 25.2 2.7 0.7 1.6 12.9 7.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.0 3.4 1.6 3.4 4.0 8.6 5.0 6.7 2.3 4.4 12.2 8.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.2 30.5 29.0 53.2 31.1 48.6 75.3 39.8 18.1 42.6 44.0 36.2 LnGrp LOS E C C D C D E D B D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 698 1032 1127 2204 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.4 42.9 42.2 42.4 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.3 34.4 18.0 39.3 17.9 44.8 18.0 39.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 * 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 * 34 14.0 29.5 12.0 37.5 12.0 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 13.5 21.0 10.2 10.7 11.6 36.0 11.0 19.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 5.9 0.1 4.0 0.0 1.4 0.1 5.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-20 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r t r Traffic Volume (vph) 375 411 1 1 672 270 1 2 1 351 1 789 Future Volume (vph) 375 411 1 1 672 270 1 2 1 351 1 789 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 150 0 150 150 Storage Lanes 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25 40 Link Distance (ft) 973 661 281 437 Travel Time (s) 16.6 11.3 7.7 7.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 8 8 7 4 5 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 Total Split (s) 41.0 63.5 11.5 34.0 34.0 22.5 22.5 22.5 45.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 34.2% 52.9% 9.6% 28.3% 28.3% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 37.5% 34.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max None None None Max Max Max Max None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. I o 1 -1"0 2 'R'- IF■ 4 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-21 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1820 1734 tt r 1395 0 0 1734 t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 375 411 1 1 672 270 1 2 1 351 1 789 Future Volume (veh/h) 375 411 1 1 672 270 1 2 1 351 1 789 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 948 1.00 1.00 1513 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 615 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 1055 No 997 101 No 641 247 No 0 520 No 729 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 383 419 1 1 686 276 1 2 1 358 1 805 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 467 1941 5 3 1513 641 70 125 52 520 615 729 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, vehlh 3469 3541 8 1734 3642 1543 214 832 349 3469 1821 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 383 205 215 1 686 276 4 0 0 358 1 805 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1820 1734 1821 1543 1395 0 0 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.9 7.3 7.3 0.1 16.3 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 40.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.9 7.3 7.3 0.1 16.3 9.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 40.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 467 948 997 3 1513 641 247 0 0 520 615 729 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.45 0.43 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 1.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1055 948 997 101 1513 641 247 0 0 520 615 729 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.5 13.9 13.9 59.8 25.3 9.5 43.5 0.0 0.0 48.3 26.3 31.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.6 0.5 0.5 44.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 65.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.7 2.9 3.0 0.1 6.9 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 33.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.1 14.4 14.4 104.2 25.5 9.9 43.6 0.0 0.0 55.6 26.4 97.4 LnGrp LOS D B B F C A D A A E C F Approach Vol, veh/h 803 963 4 1164 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.3 21.1 43.6 84.5 Approach LOS C C D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 70.3 45.0 20.7 54.3 22.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 59.0 40.5 36.5 29.5 18.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.1 9.3 42.5 14.9 18.3 13.7 2.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.3 4.1 0.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.6 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-22 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t r t t Traffic Volume (vph) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Future Volume (vph) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 21.0 39.5 11.5 30.0 26.5 32.0 42.5 26.5 37.0 Total Split (%) 17.5% 32.9% 9.6% 25.0% 22.1% 26.7% 35.4% 22.1% 30.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue 1 I i2X40_4 05 i3S'R' 0- i33:1 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-23 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1543 1734 t r 1734 t 1779 1734 t 1580 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Future Volume (veh/h) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 464 1.00 1.00 347 1.00 1.00 746 1.00 1.00 648 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 238 No 450 101 No 520 397 No 767 318 No 592 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 230 381 18 273 290 285 556 40 187 443 302 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 180 464 414 46 347 486 314 1411 101 216 739 500 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.43 0.43 0.12 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 3274 235 1734 1974 1337 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 230 381 18 273 290 285 293 303 187 388 357 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1779 1734 1730 1580 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 13.5 28.8 1.2 17.1 19.0 19.3 13.9 14.0 12.7 21.7 21.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 13.5 28.8 1.2 17.1 19.0 19.3 13.9 14.0 12.7 21.7 21.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.85 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 180 464 414 46 347 486 314 746 767 216 648 592 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.50 0.92 0.39 0.79 0.60 0.91 0.39 0.39 0.87 0.60 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 238 505 450 101 387 520 397 746 767 318 648 592 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.9 37.1 42.7 57.5 46.2 34.7 48.1 23.4 23.4 51.6 30.3 30.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.3 0.8 23.2 5.4 9.3 1.7 20.8 1.6 1.5 15.3 4.1 4.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.4 5.6 13.2 0.6 8.4 7.1 9.8 5.7 5.9 6.2 9.3 8.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.1 37.9 65.8 62.9 55.6 36.3 68.9 24.9 24.9 66.8 34.3 34.9 LnGrp LOS E D E E E D E C C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 764 581 881 932 Approach Delay, s/veh 58.7 46.2 39.2 41.1 Approach LOS E D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.4 56.2 7.7 36.7 26.2 49.4 17.0 27.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.0 38.0 7.0 35.0 27.5 32.5 16.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 14.7 16.0 3.2 30.8 21.3 23.9 12.4 21.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.3 3.1 0.0 1.4 0.4 2.8 0.1 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.7 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-24 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r t tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Future Volume (vph) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 25.0 37.0 39.0 12.0 24.0 28.0 39.0 43.0 28.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split (%) 20.8% 30.8% 32.5% 10.0% 20.0% 23.3% 32.5% 35.8% 23.3% 26.7% 26.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 11: Monroe St.& Avenue 60/60th Avenue 01 102 SRI t1013 4 05 06 'R- 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-25 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Additional Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 t 1779 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Future Volume (veh/h) 150 225 373 18 268 284 279 545 39 183 434 296 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 833 1.00 1.00 562 1.00 1.00 793 1.00 1.00 1385 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 296 No 700 108 No 443 499 No 815 340 No 618 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 230 381 18 273 290 285 556 40 187 443 302 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 181 833 653 46 562 443 317 1500 108 216 1385 618 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.46 0.46 0.12 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3274 235 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 230 381 18 273 290 285 293 303 187 443 302 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1779 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 6.5 22.7 1.2 8.6 19.5 19.3 13.3 13.3 12.7 10.6 17.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 6.5 22.7 1.2 8.6 19.5 19.3 13.3 13.3 12.7 10.6 17.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 181 833 653 46 562 443 317 793 815 216 1385 618 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.28 0.58 0.39 0.49 0.65 0.90 0.37 0.37 0.86 0.32 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 296 937 700 108 562 443 499 793 815 340 1385 618 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.8 37.1 26.5 57.5 45.7 37.5 48.0 21.2 21.2 51.5 24.7 26.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.2 0.2 1.1 5.4 0.7 3.4 12.9 1.3 1.3 13.0 0.6 2.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.0 2.7 8.1 0.6 3.7 7.6 9.1 5.3 5.5 6.1 4.2 6.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.0 37.2 27.6 62.9 46.3 41.0 60.9 22.5 22.5 64.5 25.4 29.6 LnGrp LOS E D C E D D E C C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 764 581 881 932 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.8 44.2 34.9 34.6 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.5 59.5 7.7 33.4 26.4 52.5 17.0 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 38.5 7.5 32.5 34.5 27.5 20.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 14.7 15.3 3.2 24.7 21.3 19.5 12.4 21.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.3 3.1 0.0 1.7 0.6 2.3 0.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.2 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-26 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Future Volume (vph) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 732 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 16.6 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 20.8 23.0 33.0 35.2 17.0 41.6 41.6 22.4 47.0 Total Split (%) 17.3% 19.2% 27.5% 29.3% 14.2% 34.7% 34.7% 18.7% 39.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 1 102 SRI. -OD4 i= 5 S36 'R'- 111111- 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-27 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1657 1734 t 1543 1734 tt r 1734 t 1774 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 267 1.00 1.00 495 1.00 1.00 1327 1.00 1.00 660 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 236 No 255 412 No 441 181 No 592 259 No 677 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 123 352 132 351 104 106 142 615 282 137 958 77 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 149 381 141 378 495 441 168 1327 592 164 1237 99 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 2474 913 1734 1730 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3244 261 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 123 244 240 351 104 106 142 615 282 137 511 524 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1657 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1774 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 16.7 17.2 23.8 5.5 6.3 9.7 16.0 16.5 9.3 31.1 31.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 16.7 17.2 23.8 5.5 6.3 9.7 16.0 16.5 9.3 31.1 31.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 267 255 378 495 441 168 1327 592 164 660 677 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.21 0.24 0.85 0.46 0.48 0.83 0.77 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 236 267 255 412 495 441 181 1327 592 259 660 677 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.9 50.0 50.2 46.0 32.6 32.8 53.3 27.7 27.9 53.4 32.6 32.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.3 33.9 39.7 26.3 0.2 0.3 28.2 1.2 2.7 12.4 8.6 8.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.0 9.4 9.6 13.0 2.3 2.4 5.4 6.5 6.5 4.5 13.8 14.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.2 83.8 89.9 72.3 32.8 33.1 81.5 28.9 30.6 65.8 41.2 41.0 LnGrp LOS E F F E C C F C C E D D Approach Vol, veh/h 607 561 1039 1172 Approach Delay, s/veh 82.7 57.6 36.6 44.0 Approach LOS F E D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.9 50.5 30.6 23.0 16.1 50.3 14.8 38.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.9 37.1 28.5 18.5 12.5 42.5 16.3 30.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 11.3 18.5 25.8 19.2 11.7 33.1 10.4 8.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 4.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.1 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.9 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-28 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r t tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Future Volume (vph) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 732 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 16.6 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 20.8 22.6 22.6 36.0 37.8 12.2 47.2 36.0 14.2 49.2 Total Split (%) 17.3% 18.8% 18.8% 30.0% 31.5% 10.2% 39.3% 30.0% 11.8% 41.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 01 t02 ',R- f 0? 4 0506 rR'- - 03 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-29 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 t 1543 1682 tt r 1682 t 1774 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 121 345 129 344 102 104 139 603 276 134 939 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 429 1.00 1.00 445 1.00 1.00 1553 1.00 1.00 776 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 236 No 233 455 No 428 216 No 1032 272 No 796 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 123 352 132 351 104 106 142 615 282 137 958 77 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 149 429 191 381 445 397 195 1553 1032 194 1456 117 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.06 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 1730 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3244 261 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 123 352 132 351 104 106 142 615 282 137 511 524 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1774 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 11.9 9.8 23.8 5.7 6.6 5.0 14.3 8.9 4.8 27.7 27.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 11.9 9.8 23.8 5.7 6.6 5.0 14.3 8.9 4.8 27.7 27.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 429 191 381 445 397 195 1553 1032 194 776 796 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.82 0.69 0.92 0.23 0.27 0.73 0.40 0.27 0.71 0.66 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 236 522 233 455 480 428 216 1553 1032 272 776 796 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.9 51.3 50.4 45.8 35.2 35.5 55.6 22.2 8.1 55.5 25.9 25.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.3 8.5 6.5 22.0 0.3 0.4 10.6 0.8 0.7 4.8 4.3 4.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.0 5.5 4.1 12.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 5.6 3.0 2.1 11.5 11.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.2 59.8 56.8 67.9 35.5 35.9 66.2 22.9 8.7 60.3 30.2 30.1 LnGrp LOS E E E E D D E C A E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 607 561 1039 1172 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.5 55.8 25.0 33.7 Approach LOS E E C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 58.4 30.8 19.4 11.4 58.4 14.8 35.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.7 42.7 31.5 18.1 7.7 44.7 16.3 33.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.8 16.3 25.8 13.9 7.0 29.7 10.4 8.6 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 4.9 0.6 1.0 0.0 5.2 0.1 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.5 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-30 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r t tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 32 391 97 54 224 235 49 789 94 234 936 65 Future Volume (vph) 32 391 97 54 224 235 49 789 94 234 936 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 280 150 150 150 105 150 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 1251 918 726 Travel Time (s) 71.6 17.1 12.5 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 11.6 28.0 13.0 29.4 30.0 13.8 49.0 30.0 65.2 65.2 Total Split (%) 9.7% 23.3% 10.8% 24.5% 25.0% 11.5% 40.8% 25.0% 54.3% 54.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. '�7.0 1 M" t02 ',R- 3 -1"04 5 0S 'R' - 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-31 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1699 1734 tt r 1734 t 1754 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 391 97 54 224 235 49 789 94 234 936 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 391 97 54 224 235 49 789 94 234 936 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 291 1.00 1.00 617 1.00 1.00 827 1.00 1.00 2026 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 103 No 333 123 No 559 134 No 839 369 No 904 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 399 99 55 229 240 50 805 96 239 955 66 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 67 463 114 85 617 514 82 1488 177 268 2026 904 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.48 0.48 0.15 0.59 0.59 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 2753 676 1734 3460 1543 1734 3113 371 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 249 249 55 229 240 50 447 454 239 955 66 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1699 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1754 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 16.8 17.1 3.7 7.0 14.7 3.4 21.8 21.8 16.2 19.0 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 16.8 17.1 3.7 7.0 14.7 3.4 21.8 21.8 16.2 19.0 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 67 291 286 85 617 514 82 827 839 268 2026 904 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.86 0.87 0.65 0.37 0.47 0.61 0.54 0.54 0.89 0.47 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 103 339 333 123 718 559 134 827 839 369 2026 904 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.5 48.5 48.6 56.0 43.4 31.6 56.1 22.0 22.0 49.7 14.2 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 13.0 14.7 8.0 0.4 0.7 7.1 2.5 2.5 17.9 0.8 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.0 8.0 8.1 1.8 2.9 5.3 1.6 8.8 8.9 8.1 6.8 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.4 61.5 63.3 64.0 43.8 32.3 63.2 24.6 24.5 67.6 15.0 10.9 LnGrp LOS E E E E D C E C C E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 531 524 951 1260 Approach Delay, s/veh 62.3 40.6 26.6 24.8 Approach LOS E D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.1 61.9 10.4 24.7 10.2 74.8 9.2 25.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.5 44.5 8.5 23.5 9.3 60.7 7.1 24.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 18.2 23.8 5.7 19.1 5.4 21.0 4.2 16.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.4 5.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.3 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.0 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-32 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 169 480 217 108 397 52 79 939 152 51 1134 209 Future Volume (vph) 169 480 217 108 397 52 79 939 152 51 1134 209 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 150 150 150 150 150 150 700 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 672 623 677 775 Travel Time (s) 8.3 7.7 9.2 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 15.0 28.1 28.1 19.1 32.2 32.2 16.3 59.4 59.4 13.4 56.5 56.5 Total Split (%) 12.5% 23.4% 23.4% 15.9% 26.8% 26.8% 13.6% 49.5% 49.5% 11.2% 47.1% 47.1% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 01 t Q 2 'R'- � ? 00 5 06 'R'- 03 - M" ::,� Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-33 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 169 480 217 108 397 52 79 939 152 51 1134 209 Future Volume (veh/h) 169 480 217 108 397 52 79 939 152 51 1134 209 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 591 1.00 1.00 511 1.00 1.00 2047 1.00 1.00 2007 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 346 No 304 211 No 356 171 No 867 129 No 850 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 172 490 221 110 405 53 81 958 155 52 1157 213 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 346 591 250 135 511 217 102 2047 867 83 2007 850 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.56 0.56 0.05 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, vehlh 3469 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 172 490 221 110 405 53 81 958 155 52 1157 213 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 15.6 14.1 7.5 12.9 3.1 5.5 18.8 3.8 3.5 25.1 5.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 15.6 14.1 7.5 12.9 3.1 5.5 18.8 3.8 3.5 25.1 5.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 346 591 250 135 511 217 102 2047 867 83 2007 850 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.83 0.88 0.81 0.79 0.24 0.79 0.47 0.18 0.62 0.58 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 346 716 304 211 841 356 171 2047 867 129 2007 850 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.2 48.7 34.7 54.5 49.9 33.7 55.7 15.6 5.4 56.1 17.7 5.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 6.9 21.9 12.7 2.8 0.6 12.8 0.8 0.5 7.4 1.2 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.4 7.3 6.5 3.6 5.8 1.4 2.7 7.3 1.8 1.7 9.8 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.3 55.5 56.6 67.2 52.7 34.3 68.5 16.4 5.9 63.5 18.9 5.9 LnGrp LOS D E E E D C E B A E B A Approach Vol, veh/h 883 568 1194 1422 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.2 53.8 18.6 18.6 Approach LOS E D B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 71.9 13.8 24.0 11.6 70.6 16.5 21.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.9 54.9 14.6 23.6 11.8 52.0 10.5 27.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.5 20.8 9.5 17.6 7.5 27.1 7.6 14.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 7.6 0.1 1.8 0.0 9.1 0.1 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.4 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-34 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 -11 � � t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 135 601 213 71 559 178 237 790 51 188 1089 62 Future Volume (vph) 135 601 213 71 559 178 237 790 51 188 1089 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 190 200 100 50 150 150 195 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 817 587 676 1348 Travel Time (s) 10.1 7.3 9.2 18.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 21.0 35.8 35.8 15.2 30.0 30.0 18.0 52.5 52.5 16.5 51.0 51.0 Total Split (%) 17.5% 29.8% 29.8% 12.7% 25.0% 25.0% 15.0% 43.8% 43.8% 13.8% 42.5% 42.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 01 I Q 2 IF f"'o3 -1"04 05 0,3 'R' - 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-35 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 601 213 71 559 178 237 790 51 188 1089 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 601 213 71 559 178 237 790 51 188 1089 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 821 1.00 1.00 669 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1.00 1757 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 238 No 403 155 No 328 379 No 768 336 No 744 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 138 613 217 72 570 182 242 806 52 192 1111 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 165 821 348 92 669 283 300 1812 768 249 1757 744 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 3365 3642 1543 3365 3642 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 613 217 72 570 182 242 806 52 192 1111 63 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1682 1821 1543 1682 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 18.8 15.2 4.9 18.2 13.1 8.5 17.1 2.1 6.7 27.3 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.4 18.8 15.2 4.9 18.2 13.1 8.5 17.1 2.1 6.7 27.3 2.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 165 821 348 92 669 283 300 1812 768 249 1757 744 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.75 0.62 0.78 0.85 0.64 0.81 0.44 0.07 0.77 0.63 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 238 950 403 155 774 328 379 1812 768 336 1757 744 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.4 43.3 41.9 56.1 47.4 45.3 53.6 19.5 15.7 54.6 23.1 16.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.7 2.8 2.3 13.4 8.1 3.4 9.8 0.8 0.2 7.4 1.7 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.6 8.4 5.7 2.4 8.6 5.1 3.9 6.9 0.7 3.0 11.2 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.1 46.1 44.2 69.5 55.6 48.7 63.5 20.3 15.9 62.0 24.9 17.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E E D E C B E C B Approach Vol, veh/h 968 824 1100 1366 Approach Delay, s/veh 48.9 55.3 29.6 29.7 Approach LOS D E C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 64.2 10.9 31.6 15.2 62.4 15.9 26.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 48.0 10.7 31.3 13.5 46.5 16.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 8.7 19.1 6.9 20.8 10.5 29.3 11.4 20.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 5.6 0.0 3.2 0.2 6.9 0.1 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.0 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-36 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 30 760 101 45 654 130 79 958 67 102 1347 53 Future Volume (vph) 30 760 101 45 654 130 79 958 67 102 1347 53 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 210 120 220 150 200 150 170 150 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 710 640 1322 436 Travel Time (s) 9.7 8.7 18.0 5.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 11.5 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 11.5 36.0 36.0 12.0 36.5 11.6 11.6 60.4 60.4 11.6 60.4 Total Split (%) 9.6% 30.0% 30.0% 10.0% 30.4% 9.7% 9.7% 50.3% 50.3% 9.7% 50.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 11.5 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue .01 1 }02 'R'- 3� ? 05 05'R' �U �- Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-37 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 t 1797 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 760 101 45 654 130 79 958 67 102 1347 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 760 101 45 654 130 79 958 67 102 1347 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 888 1.00 1.00 803 1.00 1.00 1866 1.00 1.00 937 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 254 No 412 116 No 512 220 No 784 220 No 924 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 31 776 103 46 667 133 81 978 68 104 1374 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 254 888 376 87 803 434 203 1866 784 210 1790 70 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.54 0.53 0.06 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, vehlh 3469 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 3469 3642 1543 3469 3481 137 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 31 776 103 46 667 133 81 978 68 104 718 710 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1797 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 24.6 5.3 3.1 21.0 6.1 2.7 20.7 2.0 3.5 37.1 37.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 24.6 5.3 3.1 21.0 6.1 2.7 20.7 2.0 3.5 37.1 37.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 254 888 376 87 803 434 203 1866 784 210 937 924 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.87 0.27 0.53 0.83 0.31 0.40 0.52 0.09 0.49 0.77 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 254 971 412 116 986 512 220 1866 784 220 937 924 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.0 43.6 24.9 55.6 44.6 19.9 54.3 18.3 8.2 54.4 21.9 22.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 8.4 0.4 5.0 5.1 0.4 1.3 1.1 0.2 1.8 6.0 6.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.4 11.6 2.4 1.4 9.6 2.5 1.2 8.1 0.9 1.5 15.5 15.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.2 52.0 25.3 60.6 49.7 20.3 55.5 19.4 8.4 56.2 27.9 28.1 LnGrp LOS D D C E D C E B A E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 910 846 1127 1532 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.0 45.7 21.3 29.9 Approach LOS D D C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 65.5 10.0 33.3 11.0 65.7 12.8 30.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 55.9 7.5 31.5 7.1 55.9 7.0 32.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.5 22.7 5.1 26.6 4.7 39.3 3.0 23.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 7.4 0.0 2.2 0.0 8.2 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.7 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-38 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t t t Traffic Volume (vph) 55 531 39 15 361 20 45 708 5 23 769 30 Future Volume (vph) 55 531 39 15 361 20 45 708 5 23 769 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 4534 1079 1013 510 Travel Time (s) 61.8 14.7 12.6 6.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 16.0 38.0 13.0 35.0 16.0 56.0 13.0 53.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 31.7% 10.8% 29.2% 13.3% 46.7% 10.8% 44.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases:17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue } i�5 05'R'- 0- 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-39 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1778 1734 t 1789 1734 t 1817 1734 t 1797 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 531 39 15 361 20 45 708 5 23 769 30 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 531 39 15 361 20 45 708 5 23 769 30 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 341 1.00 1.00 295 1.00 1.00 1036 1.00 1.00 1011 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 166 No 496 123 No 455 166 No 1088 123 No 1050 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 542 40 15 368 20 46 722 5 23 785 31 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 86 644 47 40 570 31 79 2109 15 54 1982 78 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.60 0.60 0.03 0.58 0.58 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3267 241 1734 3338 181 1734 3522 24 1734 3393 134 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 286 296 15 190 198 46 355 372 23 400 416 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1778 1734 1730 1789 1734 1730 1817 1734 1730 1797 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 19.1 19.2 1.0 12.3 12.4 3.1 12.4 12.4 1.6 15.0 15.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.8 19.1 19.2 1.0 12.3 12.4 3.1 12.4 12.4 1.6 15.0 15.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.07 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 86 341 350 40 295 305 79 1036 1088 54 1011 1050 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.84 0.84 0.38 0.64 0.65 0.58 0.34 0.34 0.42 0.40 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 166 483 496 123 440 455 166 1036 1088 123 1011 1050 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.0 46.4 46.4 57.8 46.4 46.4 56.1 12.1 12.2 57.1 13.5 13.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 8.9 9.0 5.8 2.3 2.3 6.5 0.9 0.9 5.2 1.2 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.8 8.7 9.0 0.5 5.3 5.5 1.5 4.4 4.6 0.7 5.4 5.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.2 55.3 55.4 63.6 48.7 48.7 62.7 13.1 13.0 62.3 14.7 14.6 LnGrp LOS E E E E D D E B B E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 638 403 773 839 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.1 49.3 16.0 15.9 Approach LOS E D B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 76.4 7.3 28.1 10.0 74.6 10.4 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.5 51.5 8.5 33.5 11.5 48.5 11.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.6 14.4 3.0 21.2 5.1 17.0 5.8 14.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 4.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 4.6 0.0 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.7 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP AM.syn 2-40 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 t r Traffic Volume (vph) 1 661 1370 33 95 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 661 1370 33 95 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 150 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25 Link Distance (ft) 207 1350 380 Travel Time (s) 3.5 23.0 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-41 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP AM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' + r Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 661 1370 33 95 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 661 1370 33 95 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 1 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1 674 1398 34 97 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1432 0 - 0 2074 1398 Stage 1 - - - - 1398 - Stage 2 - - 676 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - 5.6 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 3 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 474 - 100 174 Stage 1 - - 291 - Stage 2 - - 614 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 474 - 100 174 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 218 - Stage 1 - 290 Stage 2 - 614 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 34.6 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 474 - - 217 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - 0.451 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.6 0 - 34.6 HCM Lane LOS B A - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 2.2 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-42 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Additional Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt tt Traffic Volume (vph) 276 20 24 507 1048 105 Future Volume (vph) 276 20 24 507 1048 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 499 880 169 Travel Time (s) 13.6 12.0 2.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 4 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 23.2 23.2 36.8 36.8 36.8 Total Split (%) 38.7% 38.7% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None C -Max C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated ana Nnases: ia: Maaison tit. & main Access 7 06 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-43 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP AM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Additional Improvements t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 r 477 tt tt 1764 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 276 20 24 507 1048 105 Future Volume (veh/h) 276 20 24 507 1048 105 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 2259 1129 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 481 347 No No 1151 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 282 20 24 517 1069 107 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 342 304 347 2259 2073 207 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 477 3551 3267 318 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 282 20 24 517 582 594 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 477 1730 1730 1764 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 0.6 1.7 3.7 10.6 10.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.4 0.6 12.2 3.7 10.6 10.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 342 304 347 2259 1129 1151 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.07 0.07 0.23 0.52 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 541 481 347 2259 1129 1151 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.1 19.6 8.7 4.3 5.5 5.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.7 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.1 0.2 0.2 0.7 2.3 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.8 19.7 9.0 4.5 7.1 7.1 LnGrp LOS C B A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 302 541 1176 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.2 4.7 7.1 Approach LOS C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 43.7 16.3 43.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.3 18.7 32.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 14.2 11.4 12.6 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 3.1 0.6 7.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.6 HCM 6th LOS A Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-44 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-45 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib tt Traffic Volume (vph) 543 4 13 358 6 3 Future Volume (vph) 543 4 13 358 6 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 50 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 403 335 383 Travel Time (s) 5.5 4.6 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-45 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP AM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib HCM Lane LOS ) tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - Traffic Vol, veh/h 543 4 13 358 6 3 Future Vol, veh/h 543 4 13 358 6 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 50 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 590 4 14 389 7 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 594 0 815 297 Stage 1 - - - - 592 - Stage 2 - 223 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 978 315 699 Stage 1 - 516 - Stage 2 - 793 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 978 311 699 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 414 - Stage 1 - 516 Stage 2 - 782 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 12.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 479 - 978 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 - 0.014 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.7 - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS B - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0 Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-46 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-47 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 539 7 0 371 0 4 Future Volume (vph) 539 7 0 371 0 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 335 276 233 Travel Time (s) 4.6 3.8 6.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-47 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP AM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib 0 - - tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 539 7 0 371 0 4 Future Vol, veh/h 539 7 0 371 0 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 586 8 0 403 0 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - 297 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 699 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 699 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 699 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-48 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Additional Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 10 0 783 1143 14 Future Volume (vph) 0 10 0 783 1143 14 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 210 224 288 Travel Time (s) 5.7 3.1 3.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-49 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP AM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 10 0 783 1143 14 Future Vol, veh/h 0 10 0 783 1143 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 11 0 851 1242 15 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 629 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.94 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 425 0 - Stage 1 0 - 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 425 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.7 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 425 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.7 - HCM Lane LOS B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-50 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP AM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Additional Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1 1 647 1141 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 1 1 647 1141 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 25 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 306 596 577 Travel Time (s) 8.3 10.2 9.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-51 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP AM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y ) tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 647 1141 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 647 1141 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 150 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 1 660 1164 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1497 583 1165 0 - 0 Stage 1 1165 - - - - - Stage 2 332 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 113 456 595 - Stage 1 259 - - Stage 2 699 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 113 456 595 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 113 - - Stage 1 258 - - Stage 2 699 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 25.1 0 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 595 - 181 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.011 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 - 25.1 - HCM Lane LOS B - D - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-52 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Future Volume (vph) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 24.0 28.1 18.4 22.5 32.0 16.9 41.5 41.5 32.0 56.6 56.6 Total Split (%) 20.0% 23.4% 15.3% 18.8% 26.7% 14.1% 34.6% 34.6% 26.7% 47.2% 47.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 87.9 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 t02'R' 01 03 X04 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-53 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1720 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Future Volume (veh/h) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 364 1.00 1.00 500 1.00 1.00 1067 1.00 1.00 1502 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 282 No 362 201 No 594 189 No 476 407 No 670 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 298 232 46 141 274 698 82 1143 87 421 1066 357 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 282 608 118 167 500 585 189 1067 476 407 1502 670 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.23 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 2887 563 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 298 137 141 141 274 698 82 1143 87 421 1066 357 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1720 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.5 8.2 8.4 9.6 8.8 14.7 5.3 37.0 3.7 28.2 30.2 11.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.5 8.2 8.4 9.6 8.8 14.7 5.3 37.0 3.7 28.2 30.2 11.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 282 364 362 167 500 585 189 1067 476 407 1502 670 V/C Ratio(X) 1.06 0.38 0.39 0.84 0.55 1.19 0.43 1.07 0.18 1.03 0.71 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 282 364 362 201 519 594 189 1067 476 407 1502 670 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.3 40.6 40.7 53.3 47.7 15.4 50.0 41.5 17.2 45.9 27.8 8.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 69.5 0.6 0.7 23.3 1.1 102.8 1.6 48.8 0.8 53.6 2.9 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 13.6 3.4 3.5 5.1 3.8 24.0 2.3 22.1 1.9 17.6 12.2 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 119.8 41.3 41.4 76.6 48.8 118.2 51.6 90.3 18.1 99.5 30.6 11.4 LnGrp LOS F D D E D F D F B F C B Approach Vol, veh/h 576 1113 1312 1844 Approach Delay, s/veh 81.9 95.9 83.1 42.6 Approach LOS F F F D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.7 41.5 16.1 29.8 17.6 56.6 24.0 21.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.5 37.0 13.9 23.6 12.4 52.1 19.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 30.2 39.0 11.6 10.4 7.3 32.2 21.5 16.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 8.2 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 70.5 HCM 6th LOS E Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-54 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Future Volume (vph) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 100 180 180 330 160 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 276 988 288 752 Travel Time (s) 3.8 13.5 3.9 10.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 15.4 23.0 15.0 22.6 37.0 16.9 45.0 45.0 37.0 65.1 65.1 Total Split (%) 12.8% 19.2% 12.5% 18.8% 30.8% 14.1% 37.5% 37.5% 30.8% 54.3% 54.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 t02'R' 1 03 4 06 'R' 05 ";*703 =�J The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-55 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 1: Madison St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 1� 1768 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Future Volume (veh/h) 292 227 45 138 269 684 80 1120 85 413 1045 350 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 522 1.00 1.00 1168 1.00 1.00 1747 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 315 No 273 152 No 651 179 No 521 470 No 779 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 298 232 46 141 274 698 82 1143 87 421 1066 357 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 315 228 45 152 522 651 179 1168 521 470 1747 779 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.27 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow,vehlh 3469 1476 293 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 298 0 278 141 274 698 82 1143 87 421 1066 357 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 0 1768 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.3 0.0 18.5 9.7 8.8 11.5 5.3 39.2 3.6 28.0 26.4 11.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.3 0.0 18.5 9.7 8.8 11.5 5.3 39.2 3.6 28.0 26.4 11.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 315 0 273 152 522 651 179 1168 521 470 1747 779 V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.00 1.02 0.93 0.52 1.07 0.46 0.98 0.17 0.90 0.61 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 315 0 273 152 522 651 179 1168 521 470 1747 779 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.3 0.0 50.8 54.4 47.0 16.4 50.6 39.3 15.9 42.1 21.2 8.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 36.5 0.0 59.6 52.3 1.0 56.3 1.8 21.7 0.7 19.5 1.6 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.9 0.0 12.4 6.3 3.7 20.0 2.3 19.1 1.8 14.0 10.2 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 90.8 0.0 110.4 106.7 48.0 72.7 52.5 61.0 16.6 61.7 22.8 10.4 LnGrp LOS F A F F D F D E B E C B Approach Vol, veh/h 576 1113 1312 1844 Approach Delay, s/veh 100.2 70.9 57.6 29.3 Approach LOS F E E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.0 45.0 15.0 23.0 16.9 65.1 15.4 22.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 40.5 10.5 18.5 12.4 60.6 10.9 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 30.0 41.2 11.7 20.5 7.3 28.4 12.3 13.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.7 0.0 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.9 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-56 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r A tt r tt Traffic Volume (vph) 365 332 1 1712 313 146 1414 Future Volume (vph) 365 332 1 1712 313 146 1414 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50 150 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 140 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 767 818 Travel Time (s) 71.6 10.5 11.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Detector Phase 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 33.0 33.0 11.5 70.0 70.0 17.0 75.5 Total Split (%) 27.5% 27.5% 9.6% 58.3% 58.3% 14.2% 62.9% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. t02'R' 01 03 7 06 'R' �" r► o 5 os Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-57 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 2: Madison St. & Airport BI. f, t Movement WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1734 r A tt r 1734 tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 365 332 1 1712 313 146 1414 Future Volume (veh/h) 365 332 1 1712 313 146 1414 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1903 1.00 1.00 2408 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 373 No 849 195 No Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 372 339 1747 319 149 1443 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 412 366 1903 849 195 2408 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.55 0.55 0.11 0.70 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 3551 1543 1734 3551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 372 339 1747 319 149 1443 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1730 1543 1734 1730 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.0 25.8 55.1 4.3 10.0 26.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 25.8 55.1 4.3 10.0 26.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 412 366 1903 849 195 2408 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.93 0.92 0.38 0.76 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 419 373 1903 849 195 2408 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.4 44.7 24.5 1.5 51.7 9.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.1 22.3 8.6 1.3 16.2 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.2 11.7 22.0 3.9 5.1 8.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.6 67.0 33.1 2.8 67.9 10.6 LnGrp LOS E E C A E B Approach Vol, veh/h 711 2066 1592 Approach Delay, s/veh 64.1 28.4 16.0 Approach LOS E C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.5 70.0 87.5 32.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 65.5 71.0 28.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 12.0 57.1 28.1 27.8 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 6.7 13.4 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-58 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 84 521 1231 114 450 470 804 1503 229 263 969 51 Future Volume (vph) 84 521 1231 114 450 470 804 1503 229 263 969 51 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 160 150 910 150 160 120 305 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 80 120 120 100 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5080 840 924 2398 Travel Time (s) 63.0 10.4 12.6 32.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 11.5 23.1 13.2 24.8 24.0 35.4 59.7 59.7 24.0 48.3 Total Split (%) 9.6% 19.3% 11.0% 20.7% 20.0% 29.5% 49.8% 49.8% 20.0% 40.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 06 03 L�"05 I Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-59 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 3: Madison St. & Avenue 54 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1734 t 1789 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 84 521 1231 114 450 470 804 1503 229 263 969 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 84 521 1231 114 450 470 804 1503 229 263 969 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 536 1.00 1.00 585 1.00 1.00 1592 1.00 1.00 631 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 101 No 126 No 512 866 No 710 282 No 653 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 86 532 0 116 459 480 820 1534 234 268 989 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 101 536 0.0 126 585 512 866 1592 710 282 1220 64 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.15 0.00 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.46 0.46 0.16 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 1734 3344 176 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 86 532 0 116 459 480 820 1534 234 268 512 529 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1734 1730 1789 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 18.4 0.0 8.0 15.2 12.6 28.7 51.6 8.4 18.4 32.0 32.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 18.4 0.0 8.0 15.2 12.6 28.7 51.6 8.4 18.4 32.0 32.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 101 536 126 585 512 866 1592 710 282 631 653 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.99 0.92 0.78 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.33 0.95 0.81 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 536 126 585 512 866 1592 710 282 631 653 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.0 50.6 0.0 55.3 47.8 24.6 43.7 31.4 10.9 49.8 34.4 34.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.3 9.9 0.0 56.9 6.9 25.2 18.9 15.4 1.2 40.4 10.8 10.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 8.3 0.0 5.3 6.8 15.8 13.6 23.0 3.9 10.8 14.5 14.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.3 60.5 0.0 112.2 54.7 49.8 62.6 46.9 12.1 90.1 45.2 44.8 LnGrp LOS E E F D D E D B F D D Approach Vol, veh/h 618 A 1055 2588 1309 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.7 58.8 48.7 54.2 Approach LOS E E D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 59.7 13.2 23.1 35.4 48.3 11.5 24.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 55.2 8.7 18.6 30.9 43.8 7.0 20.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 20.4 53.6 10.0 20.4 30.7 34.0 7.9 17.2 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.1 0.0 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-60 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 135 696 139 123 940 224 285 1395 180 223 979 139 Future Volume (vph) 135 696 139 123 940 224 285 1395 180 223 979 139 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 435 50 200 325 160 160 255 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 105 120 140 160 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 1169 798 1237 1379 Travel Time (s) 17.7 9.9 16.9 18.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 11.5 31.5 31.5 11.5 30.5 30.5 Total Split (s) 14.6 36.9 36.9 16.8 39.1 39.1 18.0 53.0 53.0 13.3 48.3 48.3 Total Split (%) 12.2% 30.8% 30.8% 14.0% 32.6% 32.6% 15.0% 44.2% 44.2% 11.1% 40.3% 40.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 65.5 (55%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 t0 2 01 D -IW;4 rR'- C 057 i3'R' Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-61 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 4: Madison St. & Avenue 52 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 696 139 123 940 224 285 1395 180 223 979 139 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 696 139 123 940 224 285 1395 180 223 979 139 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 987 1.00 1.00 998 1.00 1.00 1398 1.00 1.00 1263 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 146 No 440 178 No 445 379 No 624 247 No 563 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 138 710 142 126 959 229 291 1423 184 228 999 142 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 146 987 440 151 998 445 379 1398 624 247 1263 563 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 710 142 126 959 229 291 1423 184 228 999 142 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 22.1 6.4 8.6 32.7 11.8 10.1 48.5 7.0 8.1 30.9 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 22.1 6.4 8.6 32.7 11.8 10.1 48.5 7.0 8.1 30.9 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 146 987 440 151 998 445 379 1398 624 247 1263 563 V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.72 0.32 0.83 0.96 0.51 0.77 1.02 0.29 0.92 0.79 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 146 987 440 178 998 445 379 1398 624 247 1263 563 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.7 38.6 18.4 53.9 42.0 22.4 51.7 35.7 12.8 55.3 34.0 15.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 58.0 4.5 1.9 24.4 20.5 4.2 9.3 28.5 1.2 37.3 5.1 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.4 9.7 3.2 4.6 15.9 4.5 4.6 24.4 3.4 4.6 13.1 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 112.7 43.1 20.3 78.3 62.6 26.6 61.0 64.3 14.0 92.6 39.1 16.0 LnGrp LOS F D C E E C E F B F D B Approach Vol, veh/h 990 1314 1898 1369 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.5 57.8 58.9 45.6 Approach LOS D E E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 53.0 15.0 38.7 18.0 48.3 14.6 39.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.8 48.5 12.3 32.4 13.5 43.8 10.1 34.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 10.1 50.5 10.6 24.1 12.1 32.9 11.5 34.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.1 5.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.7 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-62 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r )) ttt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 264 822 195 78 909 439 204 1546 73 352 1257 277 Future Volume (vph) 264 822 195 78 909 439 204 1546 73 352 1257 277 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 210 300 240 290 220 200 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 579 1049 1270 550 Travel Time (s) 8.8 14.3 17.3 7.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 7 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.0 44.8 44.8 13.2 36.0 11.5 12.5 44.2 44.2 11.5 49.5 49.5 Total Split (s) 22.0 44.8 44.8 13.2 36.0 17.4 12.5 44.6 44.6 17.4 49.5 49.5 Total Split (%) 18.3% 37.3% 37.3% 11.0% 30.0% 14.5% 10.4% 37.2% 37.2% 14.5% 41.3% 41.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max None None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue 1 XO2 'R'- T 04 03 5 06 'R' os S3 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-63 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 5: Madison St. & Avenue 50/50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r )) ttt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 264 822 195 78 909 439 204 1546 73 352 1257 277 Future Volume (veh/h) 264 822 195 78 909 439 204 1546 73 352 1257 277 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1213 1.00 1.00 908 1.00 1.00 1661 1.00 1.00 1298 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 253 No 541 126 No 571 224 No 516 362 No 579 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 269 839 199 80 928 448 208 1578 74 359 1283 283 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 253 1213 541 100 908 571 224 1661 516 362 1298 579 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.42 0.42 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.40 0.40 0.13 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 3365 4972 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 269 839 199 80 928 448 208 1578 74 359 1283 283 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1682 1657 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.5 23.8 8.3 5.5 31.5 13.1 7.4 36.8 2.9 12.8 44.1 10.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.5 23.8 8.3 5.5 31.5 13.1 7.4 36.8 2.9 12.8 44.1 10.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 253 1213 541 100 908 571 224 1661 516 362 1298 579 V/C Ratio(X) 1.06 0.69 0.37 0.80 1.02 0.78 0.93 0.95 0.14 0.99 0.99 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 1213 541 126 908 571 224 1661 516 362 1298 579 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.5 29.5 15.7 55.1 41.1 15.5 54.9 35.0 16.0 52.2 32.7 10.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 74.4 3.3 1.9 23.9 35.5 10.4 40.5 13.0 0.6 45.2 22.4 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.3 9.4 3.8 3.0 16.6 6.5 4.2 15.1 1.4 7.3 20.0 5.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 123.9 32.7 17.6 79.0 76.6 25.9 95.4 48.0 16.6 97.4 55.2 13.3 LnGrp LOS F C B E F C F D B F E B Approach Vol, veh/h 1307 1456 1860 1925 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.2 61.1 52.0 56.9 Approach LOS D E D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 46.6 12.5 49.5 22.0 36.0 17.4 44.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 40.3 8.0 45.0 17.5 31.5 12.9 40.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.5 25.8 9.4 46.1 19.5 33.5 14.8 38.8 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.9 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-64 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t rr tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 31 24 2 34 11 1395 6 251 53 1747 315 2 Future Volume (vph) 31 24 2 34 11 1395 6 251 53 1747 315 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 110 110 140 140 150 150 240 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 0 110 90 140 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 531 5080 436 1277 Travel Time (s) 6.6 63.0 5.4 15.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 7 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 11.5 22.9 22.9 11.5 22.9 63.1 22.5 22.5 22.5 63.1 63.1 63.1 Total Split (%) 9.6% 19.1% 19.1% 9.6% 19.1% 52.6% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 52.6% 52.6% 52.6% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None None Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 I 1 -1"D 2 'R'- 9 03 ■ 04 i 5 06 i3- s33 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-65 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 6: Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 t r 1734 t rr 1734 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 24 2 34 11 1395 6 251 53 1747 315 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 24 2 34 11 1395 6 251 53 1747 315 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 312 1.00 1.00 316 1.00 1.00 519 1.00 1.00 1690 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 101 No 265 101 No 1797 260 No 232 1643 No 754 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 32 24 2 35 11 1423 6 256 54 1783 321 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 66 312 265 70 316 1797 260 519 232 1643 1690 754 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.49 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 2716 1734 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 32 24 2 35 11 1423 6 256 54 1783 321 2 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1358 1734 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 1.3 0.1 2.4 0.6 20.8 0.4 8.1 3.7 58.6 6.3 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 1.3 0.1 2.4 0.6 20.8 0.4 8.1 3.7 58.6 6.3 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 66 312 265 70 316 1797 260 519 232 1643 1690 754 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.08 0.01 0.50 0.03 0.79 0.02 0.49 0.23 1.09 0.19 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 312 265 101 316 1797 260 519 232 1643 1690 754 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.5 41.7 41.2 56.4 41.2 14.4 43.5 46.8 44.9 30.7 17.3 15.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.3 0.5 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.8 0.2 3.3 2.3 49.2 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.0 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.3 11.1 0.2 3.6 1.5 32.2 2.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.9 42.2 41.3 58.3 41.3 15.3 43.7 50.1 47.3 79.9 17.6 15.7 LnGrp LOS E D D E D B D D D F B B Approach Vol, veh/h 58 1469 316 2106 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.0 16.5 49.5 70.3 Approach LOS D B D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 25.1 22.5 63.1 9.1 25.3 63.1 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 18.4 18.0 58.6 7.0 18.4 58.6 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.4 3.3 2.4 8.3 4.2 22.8 60.6 10.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.4 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-66 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 7: Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r 4 r 4 r Traffic Volume (vph) 122 553 547 34 885 565 593 1046 99 258 1179 216 Future Volume (vph) 122 553 547 34 885 565 593 1046 99 258 1179 216 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 55 Link Distance (ft) 709 813 334 462 Travel Time (s) 9.7 11.1 4.6 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-67 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. MITIG8 - 2040WP PM Thu May 25, 2023 19:33:32 Page 1-1 Club at Coral Mountain TIA (JN:15455) 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report FHWA Roundabout Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.1 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Lanes: 2 2 3 3 Volume Module: Base Vol: 593 1046 99 258 1179 216 122 553 547 34 885 565 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 593 1046 99 258 1179 216 122 553 547 34 885 565 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 593 1046 99 258 1179 216 122 553 547 34 885 565 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.00 PHF Volume: 605 1067 101 263 1203 220 124 564 0 35 903 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 605 1067 101 263 1203 220 124 564 0 35 903 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 605 1067 101 263 1203 220 124 564 0 35 903 0 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I PCE Module: AutoPCE: 605 1067 101 263 1203 220 124 564 0 35 903 0 TruckPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ComboPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BicyclePCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adj Volume: 605 1067 101 263 1203 220 124 564 0 35 903 0 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours << CircVolume: 263 605 1466 1672 MaxVolume: 2234 1988 xxxxxx xxxxxx PedVolume: 0 0 0 0 AdjMaxVol: 2234 1988 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachVol: 1773 1687 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachV/C: 0.79 0.85 1.00 1.00 ApproachDel: 7.4 10.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: A B Queue: 9.9 12.6 xxxx xxxx Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE .: Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r ) tt ) tt Traffic Volume (vph) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1834 7 23 1673 68 Future Volume (vph) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1834 7 23 1673 68 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 160 0 180 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 25 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 509 561 1820 1343 Travel Time (s) 13.9 15.3 22.6 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 40.5 18.0 39.5 Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 18.0 54.0 18.0 54.0 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 15.0% 45.0% 15.0% 45.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None C -Min Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 30 (25%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo } i31 102 R' -11"04 00 5 i3,3,%'. 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-69 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 8: Jefferson St. & Pomelo Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 45 4 r 41 4 r ) tt 1818 ) tt 1785 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1834 7 23 1673 68 Future Volume (veh/h) 66 2 21 9 1 42 3 1834 7 23 1673 68 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1494 1.00 1.00 1640 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 97 No 540 94 No 540 173 No 819 173 No 883 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 67 2 21 9 1 43 3 1871 7 23 1707 69 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 73 1 514 66 4 514 17 2304 9 93 2425 98 Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.01 0.45 0.45 0.11 0.99 0.99 Sat Flow, vehlh 41 4 1543 28 13 1543 1734 5113 19 1734 4902 198 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 69 0 21 10 0 43 3 1213 665 23 1154 622 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 45 0 1543 41 0 1543 1734 1657 1818 1734 1657 1785 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.2 38.0 38.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 40.0 0.0 1.1 39.7 0.0 2.3 0.2 38.0 38.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 74 0 514 71 0 514 17 1494 819 93 1640 883 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.00 0.08 0.18 0.81 0.81 0.25 0.70 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 97 0 540 94 0 540 173 1494 819 173 1640 883 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.54 0.54 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.3 0.0 27.0 46.2 0.0 27.4 59.0 28.6 28.6 51.4 0.3 0.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 69.5 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.1 10.9 4.9 8.6 1.6 1.4 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.5 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.1 14.7 17.0 0.6 0.5 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 128.9 0.0 27.1 48.1 0.0 27.6 69.8 33.5 37.2 52.9 1.7 2.9 LnGrp LOS F A C D A C E C D D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 90 53 1881 1799 Approach Delay, s/veh 105.1 31.5 34.8 2.8 Approach LOS F C C A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 60.8 46.8 7.1 66.0 46.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 46.5 42.0 12.0 46.5 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.5 40.0 42.0 2.2 3.5 41.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.4 HCM 6th LOS C Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-70 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 362 506 152 382 584 300 159 1498 285 408 1246 285 Future Volume (vph) 362 506 152 382 584 300 159 1498 285 408 1246 285 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 245 100 105 0 360 220 280 230 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 60 120 120 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 45 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 693 995 1343 697 Travel Time (s) 9.5 15.1 16.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 18.0 31.5 31.5 18.0 38.5 38.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 18.0 40.5 40.5 Total Split (s) 18.0 34.0 34.0 23.0 39.0 39.0 20.0 43.0 43.0 20.0 43.0 43.0 Total Split (%) 15.0% 28.3% 28.3% 19.2% 32.5% 32.5% 16.7% 35.8% 35.8% 16.7% 35.8% 35.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Min C -Min C -Min None C -Min C -Min None None None None None None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 'I2\001?'R'• 05 06 S3- S33 r'. Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-71 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 9: Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1682 tt r 1682 tt r ) ttt r )) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 506 152 382 584 300 159 1498 285 408 1246 285 Future Volume (veh/h) 362 506 152 382 584 300 159 1498 285 408 1246 285 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 760 1.00 1.00 865 1.00 1.00 1471 1.00 1.00 1579 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 336 No 341 477 No 405 202 No 457 393 No 490 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 369 516 155 390 596 306 162 1529 291 416 1271 291 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 336 760 339 439 865 386 186 1471 457 393 1579 490 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.44 0.44 0.17 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow,vehlh 3365 3460 1543 3365 3460 1543 1734 4972 1543 3365 4972 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 369 516 155 390 596 306 162 1529 291 416 1271 291 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1682 1730 1543 1682 1730 1543 1734 1657 1543 1682 1657 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.0 15.5 9.5 13.5 17.4 14.3 10.9 35.5 11.5 14.0 26.1 16.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 15.5 9.5 13.5 17.4 14.3 10.9 35.5 11.5 14.0 26.1 16.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 336 760 339 439 865 386 186 1471 457 393 1579 490 V/C Ratio(X) 1.10 0.68 0.46 0.89 0.69 0.79 0.87 1.04 0.64 1.06 0.80 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 336 764 341 477 908 405 202 1471 457 393 1579 490 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.0 36.6 34.6 47.4 33.6 16.0 49.5 33.4 12.2 49.5 28.3 25.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 77.5 4.8 4.4 16.5 4.5 15.4 23.8 32.3 2.8 62.1 3.3 2.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.2 6.2 3.7 6.1 6.8 5.7 5.5 15.5 3.5 8.6 8.3 5.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 128.5 41.4 39.0 63.9 38.0 31.3 73.3 65.7 15.0 111.6 31.6 28.1 LnGrp LOS F D D E D C E F B F C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1040 1292 1982 1978 Approach Delay, s/veh 72.0 44.2 58.9 47.9 Approach LOS E D E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.5 43.0 21.6 33.9 18.9 45.6 18.0 37.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 * 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 * 36 17.0 26.5 14.0 35.5 12.0 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 16.0 37.5 15.5 17.5 12.9 28.1 14.0 19.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 6.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Club at Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-72 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r t r Traffic Volume (vph) 967 790 2 2 699 300 2 2 2 684 2 401 Future Volume (vph) 967 790 2 2 699 300 2 2 2 684 2 401 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 150 0 150 150 Storage Lanes 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25 40 Link Distance (ft) 1137 661 281 437 Travel Time (s) 19.4 11.3 7.7 7.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 8 8 7 4 5 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 Total Split (s) 39.0 57.0 11.5 29.5 29.5 22.5 22.5 29.0 51.5 39.0 Total Split (%) 32.5% 47.5% 9.6% 24.6% 24.6% 18.8% 18.8% 24.2% 42.9% 32.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max None None None Max Max Max Max None Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. '1 2'R' �5 i35 �3 0- Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-73 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 10: Avenue 60 & Madison St. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1820 1734 tt r 1429 0 0 1734 t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 967 790 2 2 699 300 2 2 2 684 2 401 Future Volume (veh/h) 967 790 2 2 699 300 2 2 2 684 2 401 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 851 1.00 1.00 759 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 713 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 997 No 895 101 No 322 254 No 0 708 No 1048 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 987 806 2 2 713 306 2 2 2 698 2 409 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 997 1742 4 7 759 322 93 90 71 708 713 1048 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow,vehlh 3469 3541 9 1734 3642 1543 352 600 476 3469 1821 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 987 394 414 2 713 306 6 0 0 698 2 409 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1820 1734 1821 1543 1429 0 0 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 34.0 18.0 18.0 0.1 23.1 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.1 13.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 34.0 18.0 18.0 0.1 23.1 15.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.1 13.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 997 851 895 7 759 322 254 0 0 708 713 1048 V/C Ratio(X) 0.99 0.46 0.46 0.31 0.94 0.95 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 997 851 895 101 759 322 254 0 0 708 713 1048 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.6 20.0 20.0 59.6 46.8 19.7 43.5 0.0 0.0 47.6 22.2 8.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.9 1.8 1.7 24.4 19.5 37.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 30.5 0.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 17.7 7.4 7.7 0.1 12.3 8.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 4.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.5 21.8 21.8 84.0 66.2 57.1 43.7 0.0 0.0 78.1 22.2 9.5 LnGrp LOS E C C F E E D A A E C A Approach Vol, veh/h 1795 1021 6 1109 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.5 63.5 43.7 52.7 Approach LOS D E D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.0 63.5 51.5 39.0 29.5 29.0 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 52.5 47.0 34.5 25.0 24.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.1 20.0 15.9 36.0 25.1 26.1 2.4 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 5.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.1 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-74 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t r t t Traffic Volume (vph) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Future Volume (vph) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 21.0 39.5 11.5 30.0 28.0 28.6 41.0 28.0 40.4 Total Split (%) 17.5% 32.9% 9.6% 25.0% 23.3% 23.8% 34.2% 23.3% 33.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 11: Monroe St.& Avenue 60/60th Avenue 01 102 SRI. �? X43_4 5 i35'R'- i33 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-75 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1543 1734 t r 1734 t 1802 1734 t 1654 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Future Volume (veh/h) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 528 1.00 1.00 387 1.00 1.00 526 1.00 1.00 518 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 238 No 471 101 No 630 348 No 548 340 No 495 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 278 588 595 44 427 331 329 1082 33 389 631 239 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 238 528 471 78 387 630 348 1043 32 340 734 278 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 3428 105 1734 2455 929 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 278 588 595 44 427 331 329 546 569 389 445 425 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1730 1802 1734 1730 1654 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.5 36.6 36.6 3.0 25.5 19.4 22.4 36.5 36.5 23.5 29.1 29.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.5 36.6 36.6 3.0 25.5 19.4 22.4 36.5 36.5 23.5 29.1 29.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.56 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 238 528 471 78 387 630 348 526 548 340 518 495 V/C Ratio(X) 1.17 1.11 1.26 0.57 1.10 0.53 0.94 1.04 1.04 1.15 0.86 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 238 528 471 101 387 630 348 526 548 340 518 495 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.8 41.7 41.7 56.2 47.3 26.7 47.3 41.8 41.8 48.3 39.7 39.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 110.4 74.3 134.7 6.3 76.7 0.8 34.0 49.3 48.6 94.3 16.8 17.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 14.3 25.8 30.9 1.4 19.4 6.9 12.6 21.9 22.7 18.6 14.1 13.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 162.2 116.0 176.4 62.5 123.9 27.5 81.3 91.1 90.3 142.6 56.4 57.1 LnGrp LOS F F F E F C F F F F E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1461 802 1444 1259 Approach Delay, s/veh 149.4 80.8 88.6 83.3 Approach LOS F F F F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.0 41.0 9.9 41.1 28.6 40.4 21.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 36.5 7.0 35.0 24.1 35.9 16.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 25.5 38.5 5.0 38.6 24.4 31.1 18.5 27.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 103.9 HCM 6th LOS F Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-76 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r t tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Future Volume (vph) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 100 150 320 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 598 1045 1022 1291 Travel Time (s) 9.1 15.8 13.9 17.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 24.2 34.9 32.6 11.9 22.6 31.6 32.6 41.6 31.6 40.6 40.6 Total Split (%) 20.2% 29.1% 27.2% 9.9% 18.8% 26.3% 27.2% 34.7% 26.3% 33.8% 33.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue 13 i35 S35 'R' i33 i3 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-77 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 11: Monroe St. & Avenue 60/60th Avenue With Additional Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 t 1802 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Future Volume (veh/h) 272 576 583 43 418 324 322 1060 32 381 618 234 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 875 1.00 1.00 494 1.00 1.00 578 1.00 1.00 1229 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 285 No 708 107 No 581 406 No 571 392 No 521 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 278 588 595 44 427 331 329 1082 33 389 631 239 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 285 875 708 94 494 569 357 1115 34 392 1229 521 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.21 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 3460 1543 1734 3516 107 1734 3642 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 278 588 595 44 427 331 329 560 555 389 631 239 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1543 1734 1821 1802 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.1 18.4 28.2 3.0 14.5 11.6 22.3 36.4 36.4 26.9 16.7 9.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.1 18.4 28.2 3.0 14.5 11.6 22.3 36.4 36.4 26.9 16.7 9.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 285 875 708 94 494 569 357 578 571 392 1229 521 V/C Ratio(X) 0.98 0.67 0.84 0.47 0.86 0.58 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.51 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 285 877 708 107 522 581 406 578 571 392 1229 521 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.9 40.4 14.5 55.1 50.3 12.7 46.7 40.4 40.4 46.4 31.9 12.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 46.7 2.0 9.0 3.6 13.5 1.4 24.7 30.8 31.1 43.6 1.5 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 11.7 7.8 10.4 1.4 7.0 3.7 11.7 20.3 20.1 15.8 7.3 3.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 96.6 42.4 23.5 58.6 63.8 14.1 71.4 71.2 71.5 89.9 33.4 15.6 LnGrp LOS F D C E E B E E E F C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1461 802 1444 1259 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.0 43.0 71.4 47.5 Approach LOS D D E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 31.6 42.6 11.0 34.8 29.2 45.0 24.2 21.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.1 37.1 7.4 30.4 28.1 36.1 19.7 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 28.9 38.4 5.0 30.2 24.3 18.7 21.1 16.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 4.3 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.0 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-78 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Future Volume (vph) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 732 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 16.6 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 19.2 25.0 32.1 37.9 19.6 43.9 43.9 19.0 43.3 Total Split (%) 16.0% 20.8% 26.8% 31.6% 16.3% 36.6% 36.6% 15.8% 36.1% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 1 I } Q2 'R'- o? -004 i=5 05 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-79 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1721 1734 t 1656 1734 tt r 1734 t 1735 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Future Volume (veh/h) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 296 1.00 1.00 515 1.00 1.00 1136 1.00 1.00 559 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 212 No 294 399 No 493 218 No 507 210 No 561 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 522 101 420 521 194 215 1118 286 210 945 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 179 494 95 399 735 272 218 1136 507 210 965 155 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 2893 557 1734 2471 916 1734 3460 1543 1734 2985 480 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 311 312 420 364 351 215 1118 286 210 548 549 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1721 1734 1730 1656 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1735 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 20.5 20.5 27.6 22.5 22.7 14.8 38.5 18.3 14.5 37.6 37.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 20.5 20.5 27.6 22.5 22.7 14.8 38.5 18.3 14.5 37.6 37.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 179 296 294 399 515 493 218 1136 507 210 559 561 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 1.05 1.06 1.05 0.71 0.71 0.99 0.98 0.56 1.00 0.98 0.98 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 212 296 294 399 515 493 218 1136 507 210 559 561 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.9 49.8 49.8 46.2 37.5 37.6 52.3 40.0 33.2 52.8 40.2 40.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.0 67.0 69.4 59.6 4.4 4.8 56.5 23.1 4.5 62.7 33.2 33.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.6 14.0 14.1 18.4 10.1 9.8 9.6 19.0 7.5 9.7 20.2 20.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.9 116.7 119.1 105.8 42.0 42.4 108.8 63.1 37.7 115.4 73.4 73.5 LnGrp LOS E F F F D D F E D F E E Approach Vol, veh/h 776 1135 1619 1307 Approach Delay, s/veh 109.8 65.7 64.7 80.2 Approach LOS F E E F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 43.9 32.1 25.0 19.6 43.3 16.9 40.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 39.4 27.6 20.5 15.1 38.8 14.7 33.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 16.5 40.5 29.6 22.5 16.8 39.6 12.4 24.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 76.4 HCM 6th LOS E Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-80 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r t tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Future Volume (vph) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 670 732 913 1519 Travel Time (s) 9.1 16.6 12.5 20.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 19.2 24.0 24.0 37.0 41.8 13.6 46.0 37.0 13.0 45.4 Total Split (%) 16.0% 20.0% 20.0% 30.8% 34.8% 11.3% 38.3% 30.8% 10.8% 37.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases:} 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 01 05r 06 rR'- - 03 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. WE HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 12: Monroe St. & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 t 1656 1682 tt r 1682 t 1733 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Future Volume (veh/h) 150 512 99 412 511 190 211 1096 280 206 926 149 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 562 1.00 1.00 546 1.00 1.00 1311 1.00 1.00 646 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 212 No 251 470 No 523 255 No 952 238 No 615 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 522 101 420 521 194 215 1118 286 210 945 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 179 562 251 445 780 289 255 1311 952 238 1086 175 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.26 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.36 0.36 0.07 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3460 1543 1734 2471 916 3365 3642 1543 3365 3061 492 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 522 101 420 364 351 215 1118 286 210 562 535 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1656 1682 1821 1543 1682 1821 1733 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 17.9 7.0 28.5 21.9 22.1 7.6 34.0 10.5 7.4 34.5 34.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 17.9 7.0 28.5 21.9 22.1 7.6 34.0 10.5 7.4 34.5 34.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 179 562 251 445 546 523 255 1311 952 238 646 615 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.93 0.40 0.94 0.67 0.67 0.84 0.85 0.30 0.88 0.87 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 212 562 251 470 546 523 255 1311 952 238 646 615 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.9 49.6 45.0 43.7 35.6 35.6 54.7 35.5 10.8 55.2 36.1 36.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.0 21.9 1.0 27.1 3.1 3.3 21.8 7.2 0.8 29.4 14.8 15.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.6 9.1 2.8 15.5 9.7 9.3 3.9 15.5 3.7 4.0 17.1 16.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.9 71.5 46.1 70.8 38.6 38.9 76.5 42.7 11.6 84.6 50.9 51.6 LnGrp LOS E E D E D D E D B F D D Approach Vol, veh/h 776 1135 1619 1307 Approach Delay, s/veh 69.2 50.7 41.7 56.6 Approach LOS E D D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 47.7 35.3 24.0 13.6 47.1 16.9 42.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.5 41.5 32.5 19.5 9.1 40.9 14.7 37.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 9.4 36.0 30.5 19.9 9.6 36.6 12.4 24.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 3.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 3.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.2 HCM 6th LOS D The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-82 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib tt r t tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 71 325 54 119 491 367 102 1317 94 276 1096 130 Future Volume (vph) 71 325 54 119 491 367 102 1317 94 276 1096 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 280 150 150 150 105 150 160 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 60 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 5252 1251 918 726 Travel Time (s) 71.6 17.1 12.5 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 11.8 22.6 14.4 25.2 26.0 18.5 57.0 26.0 64.5 64.5 Total Split (%) 9.8% 18.8% 12.0% 21.0% 21.7% 15.4% 47.5% 21.7% 53.8% 53.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. 1 I Q 2 'R' 1334 5 06 ',R'- 0- .4- NENEA 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-83 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 13: Monroe St. & Airport BI. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1733 1734 tt r 1734 t 1779 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 325 54 119 491 367 102 1317 94 276 1096 130 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 325 54 119 491 367 102 1317 94 276 1096 130 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 247 1.00 1.00 597 1.00 1.00 775 1.00 1.00 1905 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 106 No 261 143 No 539 202 No 797 311 No 849 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 332 55 121 501 374 104 1344 96 282 1118 133 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 92 426 70 143 597 539 128 1467 104 307 1905 849 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.45 0.45 0.18 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 2975 488 1734 3460 1543 1734 3276 233 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 72 192 195 121 501 374 104 708 732 282 1118 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1733 1734 1730 1543 1734 1730 1779 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 12.8 13.1 8.3 16.8 20.7 7.1 45.9 46.3 19.2 25.8 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 12.8 13.1 8.3 16.8 20.7 7.1 45.9 46.3 19.2 25.8 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 92 247 248 143 597 539 128 775 797 307 1905 849 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.77 0.79 0.85 0.84 0.69 0.81 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.59 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 106 261 261 143 597 539 202 775 797 311 1905 849 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.1 49.6 49.7 54.3 48.0 33.5 54.7 31.0 31.1 48.6 17.9 13.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.1 11.1 12.3 34.8 10.3 3.8 12.4 17.1 17.4 31.0 1.3 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 6.1 6.3 4.9 7.8 9.4 3.4 21.2 22.0 10.6 9.6 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 80.3 60.7 61.9 89.1 58.4 37.4 67.1 48.1 48.5 79.6 19.2 13.7 LnGrp LOS F E E F E D E D D E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 459 996 1544 1533 Approach Delay, s/veh 64.3 54.2 49.6 29.9 Approach LOS E D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.7 58.2 14.4 21.7 13.4 70.6 10.9 25.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 52.5 9.9 18.1 14.0 60.0 7.3 20.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 21.2 48.3 10.3 15.1 9.1 27.8 6.9 22.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.6 0.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.4 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-84 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 215 609 205 147 820 206 115 1594 48 177 1156 92 Future Volume (vph) 215 609 205 147 820 206 115 1594 48 177 1156 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 305 150 150 150 150 150 150 700 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 672 623 677 775 Travel Time (s) 8.3 7.7 9.2 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 12.4 29.0 29.0 15.4 32.0 32.0 19.6 58.6 58.6 17.0 56.0 56.0 Total Split (%) 10.3% 24.2% 24.2% 12.8% 26.7% 26.7% 16.3% 48.8% 48.8% 14.2% 46.7% 46.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 1 t O 2 'R'• 19 X04 ? i=5 06 IF03 i3 - Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-85 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 14: Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 215 609 205 147 820 206 115 1594 48 177 1156 92 Future Volume (veh/h) 215 609 205 147 820 206 115 1594 48 177 1156 92 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 700 1.00 1.00 835 1.00 1.00 1642 1.00 1.00 1722 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 228 No 315 178 No 354 218 No 696 181 No 730 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 219 621 209 150 837 210 117 1627 49 181 1180 94 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 228 700 297 178 835 354 143 1642 696 181 1722 730 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, vehlh 3469 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 219 621 209 150 837 210 117 1627 49 181 1180 94 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.6 19.9 12.2 10.2 27.5 11.2 8.0 53.2 1.5 12.5 30.3 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 19.9 12.2 10.2 27.5 11.2 8.0 53.2 1.5 12.5 30.3 3.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 228 700 297 178 835 354 143 1642 696 181 1722 730 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.89 0.70 0.84 1.00 0.59 0.82 0.99 0.07 1.00 0.69 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 228 744 315 178 835 354 218 1642 696 181 1722 730 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.9 47.2 29.4 52.9 46.3 24.3 54.2 32.7 8.5 53.8 24.7 9.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 47.9 12.1 6.5 28.6 31.8 2.7 13.5 20.1 0.2 67.4 2.2 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.7 9.8 4.8 5.7 15.4 4.1 3.9 25.9 0.8 8.6 12.6 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 103.8 59.3 35.9 81.4 78.1 27.0 67.7 52.8 8.7 121.2 26.9 9.9 LnGrp LOS F E D F F C E D A F C A Approach Vol, veh/h 1049 1197 1793 1455 Approach Delay, s/veh 64.0 69.5 52.6 37.5 Approach LOS E E D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 58.6 16.8 27.6 14.4 61.2 12.4 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 54.1 10.9 24.5 15.1 51.5 7.9 27.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 14.5 55.2 12.2 21.9 10.0 32.3 9.6 29.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.5 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-86 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 179 647 266 95 1034 287 229 1331 144 225 1089 138 Future Volume (vph) 179 647 266 95 1034 287 229 1331 144 225 1089 138 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 190 200 100 50 150 150 195 150 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 817 587 676 1348 Travel Time (s) 10.1 7.3 9.2 18.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 17.6 38.6 38.6 18.0 39.0 39.0 15.7 50.1 50.1 13.3 47.7 47.7 Total Split (%) 14.7% 32.2% 32.2% 15.0% 32.5% 32.5% 13.1% 41.8% 41.8% 11.1% 39.8% 39.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 } 01 I Q 2 'R'- -1"04 05 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-87 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 15: Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1682 tt r 1682 tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 179 647 266 95 1034 287 229 1331 144 225 1089 138 Future Volume (veh/h) 179 647 266 95 1034 287 229 1331 144 225 1089 138 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1191 1.00 1.00 1047 1.00 1.00 1384 1.00 1.00 1339 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 189 No 505 195 No 444 314 No 586 247 No 568 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 183 660 271 97 1055 293 234 1358 147 230 1111 141 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 189 1191 505 121 1047 444 288 1384 586 247 1339 568 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.07 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 3365 3642 1543 3365 3642 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 183 660 271 97 1055 293 234 1358 147 230 1111 141 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1682 1821 1543 1682 1821 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.6 17.9 17.2 6.6 34.5 20.0 8.2 44.2 7.8 8.2 33.3 7.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.6 17.9 17.2 6.6 34.5 20.0 8.2 44.2 7.8 8.2 33.3 7.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 189 1191 505 121 1047 444 288 1384 586 247 1339 568 V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.55 0.54 0.80 1.01 0.66 0.81 0.98 0.25 0.93 0.83 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 189 1191 505 195 1047 444 314 1384 586 247 1339 568 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.2 33.2 33.0 55.0 42.8 37.6 53.9 36.8 25.5 55.3 34.5 26.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 55.5 0.6 1.1 11.7 29.7 3.6 13.9 20.1 1.0 39.2 6.1 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.2 7.5 6.2 3.2 18.8 7.6 3.9 22.1 2.9 4.7 14.9 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 108.7 33.7 34.1 66.7 72.4 41.2 67.8 56.9 26.5 94.5 40.6 27.4 LnGrp LOS F C C E F D E E C F D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1114 1445 1739 1482 Approach Delay, s/veh 46.1 65.7 55.8 47.7 Approach LOS D E E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 50.1 12.8 43.8 14.8 48.6 17.6 39.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.8 45.6 13.5 34.1 11.2 43.2 13.1 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 10.2 46.2 8.6 19.9 10.2 35.3 14.6 36.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.1 0.1 4.4 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.3 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-88 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r t Traffic Volume (vph) 59 972 209 70 1124 132 209 1577 116 158 1344 47 Future Volume (vph) 59 972 209 70 1124 132 209 1577 116 158 1344 47 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 210 120 220 150 200 150 170 150 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 120 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 710 640 1322 436 Travel Time (s) 9.7 8.7 18.0 5.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 1 5 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 11.5 11.5 20.5 20.5 11.5 20.5 Total Split (s) 11.5 41.1 41.1 11.5 41.1 11.5 12.2 55.9 55.9 11.5 55.2 Total Split (%) 9.6% 34.3% 34.3% 9.6% 34.3% 9.6% 10.2% 46.6% 46.6% 9.6% 46.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Max C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 11.5 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue .01 t 0 2 'R'- ? i 506 rR'- 03 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-89 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 16: Monroe St. & 50th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 tt r 1734 t 1799 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 59 972 209 70 1124 132 209 1577 116 158 1344 47 Future Volume (veh/h) 59 972 209 70 1124 132 209 1577 116 158 1344 47 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1090 1.00 1.00 1126 1.00 1.00 1604 1.00 1.00 791 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 217 No 477 112 No 574 237 No 673 217 No 782 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 60 992 213 71 1147 135 213 1609 118 161 1371 48 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 189 1090 462 112 1126 574 237 1604 673 217 1520 53 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.07 0.46 0.45 Sat Flow, vehlh 3469 3642 1543 1734 3642 1543 3469 3642 1543 3469 3498 122 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 992 213 71 1147 135 213 1609 118 161 713 706 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1543 1734 1821 1799 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 31.5 10.7 4.8 37.1 5.4 7.3 52.8 4.1 5.5 43.4 43.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 31.5 10.7 4.8 37.1 5.4 7.3 52.8 4.1 5.5 43.4 43.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 189 1090 462 112 1126 574 237 1604 673 217 791 782 V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.91 0.46 0.63 1.02 0.24 0.90 1.00 0.18 0.74 0.90 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 217 1126 477 112 1126 574 237 1604 673 217 791 782 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.6 40.5 21.6 54.8 41.5 15.0 55.3 32.3 11.4 55.1 30.2 30.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 10.7 0.7 11.2 31.6 0.2 32.9 23.2 0.6 12.9 15.4 15.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.9 14.9 3.7 2.4 20.6 2.1 4.2 26.0 1.9 2.7 20.5 20.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.5 51.2 22.3 65.9 73.0 15.2 88.2 55.5 12.0 68.0 45.6 46.1 LnGrp LOS E D C E F B F F B E D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1265 1353 1940 1580 Approach Delay, s/veh 46.6 66.9 56.4 48.1 Approach LOS D E E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 56.8 11.7 39.9 12.2 56.1 10.6 41.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 51.4 7.0 36.6 7.7 50.7 7.0 36.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.5 54.8 6.8 33.5 9.3 45.6 4.0 39.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.5 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-90 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tib t t t Traffic Volume (vph) 78 634 28 18 830 36 67 1028 32 11 883 90 Future Volume (vph) 78 634 28 18 830 36 67 1028 32 11 883 90 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 50 50 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 4534 1079 1013 510 Travel Time (s) 61.8 14.7 12.6 6.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 15.0 44.4 11.6 41.0 13.0 52.4 11.6 51.0 Total Split (%) 12.5% 37.0% 9.7% 34.2% 10.8% 43.7% 9.7% 42.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C -Max None C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue } 01 102 'R' 03 4 05 06 R' Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-91 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 17: Jackson St. & 58th Avenue Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 tib 1794 1734 t 1795 1734 t 1802 1734 t 1763 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 78 634 28 18 830 36 67 1028 32 11 883 90 Future Volume (veh/h) 78 634 28 18 830 36 67 1028 32 11 883 90 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 536 1.00 1.00 481 1.00 1.00 858 1.00 1.00 799 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 152 No 596 103 No 546 123 No 894 103 No 814 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 647 29 18 847 37 68 1049 33 11 901 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 101 1045 47 46 938 41 91 1699 53 31 1463 149 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.46 0.46 Sat Flow,vehlh 1734 3373 151 1734 3377 148 1734 3424 108 1734 3169 324 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 332 344 18 434 450 68 530 552 11 492 501 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1730 1794 1734 1730 1795 1734 1730 1802 1734 1730 1763 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 19.6 19.7 1.2 29.0 29.0 4.6 26.7 26.7 0.8 25.7 25.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 19.6 19.7 1.2 29.0 29.0 4.6 26.7 26.7 0.8 25.7 25.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.18 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 101 536 556 46 481 499 91 858 894 31 799 814 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.62 0.62 0.39 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.62 0.62 0.35 0.62 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 575 596 103 526 546 123 858 894 103 799 814 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.8 35.4 35.4 57.5 41.8 41.8 56.1 22.0 22.0 58.2 24.3 24.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.2 1.8 1.8 5.4 17.9 17.4 15.7 3.3 3.2 6.7 3.5 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 8.2 8.5 0.6 14.1 14.6 2.3 10.6 11.0 0.4 10.4 10.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.0 37.2 37.1 62.9 59.6 59.1 71.8 25.3 25.2 65.0 27.8 27.8 LnGrp LOS E D D E E E E C C E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 756 902 1150 1004 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.7 59.4 28.0 28.2 Approach LOS D E C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 64.0 7.7 41.7 10.8 59.9 11.5 37.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 47.9 7.1 39.9 8.5 46.5 10.5 36.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.8 28.7 3.2 21.7 6.6 27.7 7.5 31.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 5.9 0.0 3.4 0.0 5.3 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.0 HCM 6th LOS D Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\09 - 204OWP PM.syn 2-92 Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Additional Improvements Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 t r Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1679 963 104 59 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 1679 963 104 59 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 150 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25 Link Distance (ft) 207 1226 380 Travel Time (s) 3.5 20.9 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-93 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP PM Peak hour 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations *' + r Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1679 963 104 59 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1679 963 104 59 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 1 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1713 983 106 60 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1089 0 - 0 2698 983 Stage 1 - - - - 983 - Stage 2 - - 1715 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - 5.1 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 4.6 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 4.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 3 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 641 - 66 302 Stage 1 - - 501 - Stage 2 - - 264 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 641 - 64 302 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 182 - Stage 1 - 485 Stage 2 - 264 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 34.3 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 641 - - 183 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - 0.335 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 0 - 34.3 HCM Lane LOS B A - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 1.4 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-94 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Additional Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt tt Traffic Volume (vph) 203 17 56 1060 893 299 Future Volume (vph) 203 17 56 1060 893 299 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 499 880 169 Travel Time (s) 13.6 12.0 2.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 11.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 22.6 22.6 11.6 37.4 25.8 Total Split (%) 37.7% 37.7% 19.3% 62.3% 43.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C -Max C -Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 19: Madison St. & Main Access t02'R' 04 05 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-95 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 WP PM Peak hour 19: Madison St. & Main Access With Additional Improvements t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1734 r 1734 tt tt 1668 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 203 17 56 1060 893 299 Future Volume (veh/h) 203 17 56 1060 893 299 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 2416 954 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No 466 205 No No 920 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 207 17 57 1082 911 305 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 263 234 124 2416 1406 469 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.70 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, vehlh 1734 1543 1734 3551 2639 850 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 207 17 57 1082 617 599 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 1543 1734 1730 1730 1668 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 0.6 1.9 8.2 14.9 15.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 0.6 1.9 8.2 14.9 15.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 263 234 124 2416 954 920 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.07 0.46 0.45 0.65 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 523 466 205 2416 954 920 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.5 21.8 26.7 4.0 9.4 9.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.2 0.1 2.6 0.6 3.4 3.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.1 0.5 0.8 1.2 4.5 4.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.7 22.0 29.4 4.6 12.8 13.0 LnGrp LOS C C C A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 224 1139 1216 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.1 5.8 12.9 Approach LOS C A B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.4 13.6 8.8 37.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.9 18.1 7.1 21.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 10.2 8.9 3.9 17.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 7.3 0.4 0.0 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.2 HCM 6th LOS B The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-96 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-97 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib tt Traffic Volume (vph) 550 8 28 671 25 13 Future Volume (vph) 550 8 28 671 25 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 50 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 60 60 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 403 335 383 Travel Time (s) 5.5 4.6 10.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-97 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP PM Peak hour 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib HCM Lane LOS ) tt HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - Traffic Vol, veh/h 550 8 28 671 25 13 Future Vol, veh/h 550 8 28 671 25 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 50 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 598 9 30 729 27 14 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 607 0 1028 304 Stage 1 - - - - 603 - Stage 2 - 425 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 967 230 692 Stage 1 - 509 - Stage 2 - 627 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 967 223 692 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 353 - Stage 1 - 509 Stage 2 - 608 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 14.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 424 - 967 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.097 - 0.031 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 - 8.8 HCM Lane LOS B - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.1 The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-98 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-99 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 547 16 0 699 0 17 Future Volume (vph) 547 16 0 699 0 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25 Link Distance (ft) 335 276 233 Travel Time (s) 4.6 3.8 6.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-99 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP PM Peak hour 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tib 0.1 - - tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 547 16 0 699 0 17 Future Vol, veh/h 547 16 0 699 0 17 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 595 17 0 760 0 18 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - 306 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 690 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 690 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 690 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-100 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Additional Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 35 0 1263 1157 34 Future Volume (vph) 0 35 0 1263 1157 34 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 210 224 288 Travel Time (s) 5.7 3.1 3.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-101 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP PM Peak hour 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 35 0 1263 1157 34 Future Vol, veh/h 0 35 0 1263 1157 34 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 38 0 1373 1258 37 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 648 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.94 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 413 0 - Stage 1 0 - 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 413 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - Stage 2 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.6 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 413 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.092 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.6 - HCM Lane LOS B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-102 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 WP PM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Additional Improvements t Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y tt t Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1 1 1269 1086 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 1 1 1269 1086 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 150 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 90 90 Link Speed (mph) 25 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 306 596 521 Travel Time (s) 8.3 10.2 8.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-103 HCM 6th TWSC 2040 WP PM Peak hour 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access With Additional Improvements Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y ) tt t Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 1269 1086 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 1 1269 1086 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 150 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 1 1295 1108 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1759 555 1109 0 - 0 Stage 1 1109 - - - - - Stage 2 650 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 76 475 625 - Stage 1 277 - - - Stage 2 481 - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 76 475 625 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 76 - - - Stage 1 276 - - Stage 2 481 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 32.9 0 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 625 - 131 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.016 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.8 - 32.9 - HCM Lane LOS B - D - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - The Wave - Coral Mountain Synchro 10 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2-104 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 WP AM Peak hour Intersection: 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access Movement EB B91 B91 SB Directions Served LT T T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 5 403 82 172 Average Queue (ft) 1 90 0 95 95th Queue (ft) 8 396 0 217 Link Distance (ft) 184 451 451 338 Upstream Blk Time (%) 185 1 0 73 Queuing Penalty (veh) 191 4 0 57 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 19: Madison St. & Main Access Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB B51 B51 Directions Served L R L T T T TR T T Maximum Queue (ft) 170 105 44 66 47 164 171 38 59 Average Queue (ft) 119 30 18 39 22 112 114 7 12 95th Queue (ft) 185 108 49 73 52 191 198 40 57 Link Distance (ft) 452 848 848 105 105 173 173 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 37 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 10 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 Intersection: 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 Movement WB NB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 20 31 Average Queue (ft) 5 8 95th Queue (ft) 23 30 Link Distance (ft) 336 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Club at Coral Mountain Urban Crossroads, Inc. F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn SimTraffic Report 2-105 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 WP AM Peak hour Intersection: 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) EB NB T R 55 18 12 3 58 18 286 173 Intersection: 22: Madison St. & Project Access 3 Movement EB NB NB Directions Served R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 32 93 58 Average Queue (ft) 6 19 10 95th Queue (ft) 29 81 60 Link Distance (ft) 164 173 173 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access Movement EB NB Directions Served LR L Maximum Queue (ft) 5 5 Average Queue (ft) 1 1 95th Queue (ft) 8 8 Link Distance (ft) 260 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 80 Club at Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-155001_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP AM Imps -syn 2-106 Urban Crossroads, Inc. SimTraffic Report Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 WP PM Peak hour Intersection: 18: Avenue 60 & S. Access Movement EB B91 SB Directions Served LT T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 200 72 308 Average Queue (ft) 71 0 225 95th Queue (ft) 218 0 400 Link Distance (ft) 184 451 338 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 0 25 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 19: Madison St. & Main Access Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB B51 B51 Directions Served L R L T T T TR T T Maximum Queue (ft) 158 74 94 195 184 178 182 97 125 Average Queue (ft) 105 22 50 108 90 125 148 20 45 95th Queue (ft) 172 105 126 248 234 195 220 83 124 Link Distance (ft) 452 848 848 105 105 173 173 Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 17 Queuing Penalty (veh) 73 113 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 10 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 3 Intersection: 20: Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 19 33 45 Average Queue (ft) 3 9 23 95th Queue (ft) 19 32 51 Link Distance (ft) 368 336 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 The Wave - Coral Mountain Urban Crossroads, Inc. F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn SimTraffic Report 2-107 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 WP PM Peak hour Intersection: 21: Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) EB EB NB T TR R 94 204 41 27 101 19 119 277 48 286 286 187 175 2 164 173 6 105 Intersection: 22: Madison St. & Proiect Access 3 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) EB NB NB B51 B51 R T T T T 50 234 233 133 109 25 189 174 58 51 50 297 299 175 169 164 173 173 105 105 22 21 9 8 140 133 56 49 Intersection: 23: Madison St. & Golf Course S. Access Movement EB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 10 Average Queue (ft) 1 95th Queue (ft) 12 Link Distance (ft) 257 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 576 The Wave - Coral Mountain F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15400\15455\Synchro\109 - 204OWP PM Imps.syn 2-108 Urban Crossroads, Inc. SimTraffic Report URBAN CROSSROADS May 31, 2023 Mr. John Gamlin CM Wave Development, LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 81301 CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN SUPPLEMENTAL VMT ASSESSMENT Dear Mr. John Gamlin: 15455 Supplemental VMT. docx The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this Supplemental Assessment of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the proposed Club at Coral Mountain development ("Project"), which is located on the southwest corner of re -aligned Madison Street at 58th Avenue in the City of La Quinta. This letter provides information regarding Project residential and non-residential VMT generated by the Alternative 2 "Existing Entitlements" scenario presented in the CORAL MOUNTAIN ALTERNATIVES TRIP GENERATION AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS COMPARISON letter prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (May 2021). The 2021 Trip Generation Alternatives letter indicated that Alternative 2 is anticipated to have a higher daily VMT and per capita VMT because it generates more daily trips and lacks the full complement of prior proposed land uses (no C -T Zone, surf wave basin, or hotel). The Project does not change existing General Plan land use or zoning designations for the site, consistent with the approved Andalusia Specific Plan and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310). A Specific Plan Amendment is proposed to adjust the location and layout of open space -recreation and low density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of existing land use designations. The Project consists of a commercial corner (60,000 square feet of retail), an 18 -hole golf course, and up to 750 residential units. The Project site plan is shown on Exhibit 1. A supplemental LOS assessment has been prepared in a separate document. To ensure that this supplemental VMT assessment is consistent with technical studies prepared for Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310), the "without Project" datasets are consistent with those presented in the February 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. 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 measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. 20341 SW Birch Street I Suite 230 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 J (949) 660-1994 1 urbanxroads.com CM Wave Development, LLC May 31, 2023 This statewide mandate went into effect 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 CEOA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory) (1). Based on OPR's Technical Advisory, the City of La Quinta adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Policy (July 2021) (2) (City Guidelines), which documents the City's VMT analysis methodology and approved impact thresholds. VMT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The City 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 or related uses such as a golf course, a net increase in the total existing VMT for the region. PROJECT SCREENING Consistent with City Guidelines, projects that meet certain screening thresholds based on their location and project type may be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact. The following screening criteria are described within the City Guidelines: • Step 1: Project Type Screening Step 2: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening • Step 3: Low VMT Area Screening A land use project need only meet one of the above screening criteria to result in a less than significant impact. For the purposes of this supplemental assessment, the VMT screening process has been conducted using the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM). As noted in the February 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, the La Quinta Guidelines allow retail projects of less than 70,000 square feet to be screened out. Because the retail component of the Project is less than 70,000 square feet, the retail portion of the Project is screened out. As noted in the February 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, the site location is not within a TPA. The Project is located in RIVTAM traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 4742, which also is not a low VMT generating TAZ. Exhibit 2 shows the Project area RIVTAM traffic analysis zones. Since none of the project level screening criteria were met for residential and golf uses, a full project level VMT analysis has been prepared. URBAN CROSSROADS CM Wave Development, LLC May 31, 2023 PROJECT VMT ASSESSMENT Consistent with the February 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, Project VMT has been calculated using RIVTAM. 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. 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. 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. 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. TABLE 1: POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES Land Use Estimated Service Population Residential 1,875 Residents Golf Facilities 113 Employees Commercial Retail 240 Employees Total: 2,228 Service Population Adjustments to population and employment factors for the Project TAZs 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 TAZs. 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 golf employees and 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. URBAN CROSSROADS 3 CM Wave Development, LLC May 31, 2023 TABLE 2: BASELINE AND CUMULATIVE PROJECT RESIDENTIAL HOME-BASED VMT For baseline (2020) conditions, the residential portion of the Project generates 24,632 Home - Based VMT. There are an estimated 1,875 Project residents. The result is approximately 13.14 home-based VMT / Capita for the 2020 Baseline with Project conditions. In addition, the cumulative (2040) Project scenario results in approximately 13.99 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 Project 2012 Project 2040 Project 2020 (interpolated) Residents 1,875 1,875 1,875 VMT 23,992 26,232 24,632 VMT / Resident 12.80 13.99 13.14 For baseline (2020) conditions, the residential portion of the Project generates 24,632 Home - Based VMT. There are an estimated 1,875 Project residents. The result is approximately 13.14 home-based VMT / Capita for the 2020 Baseline with Project conditions. In addition, the cumulative (2040) Project scenario results in approximately 13.99 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 13.14 is greater than the City VMT / Capita threshold, indicating a potentially significant VMT impact. PROJECT GOLF COURSE IMPACT ON VMT As noted above, the VMT analysis methodology for non-residential uses focuses on the net increase in the total existing VMT for the region. The golf facilities portion of the project consists of approximately 113 employees. 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. URBAN CROSSROADS 10 CM Wave Development, LLC May 31, 2023 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 21.57. The project's effect on VMT (for non-residential uses) is considered significant because it results in a cumulative link - level boundary CVAG VMT per service population increase 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. The Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities. and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA, 2021) provides information on individual measures for potential reduction in VMT. Consistent with the February 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, reductions in project -generated VMT could be realized via a combination of design elements to enhance bicycle / golf cart / pedestrian accommodations and internal site connections between the commercial corner, golf clubhouse, and residences. However, the effectiveness of these strategies to reduce single -occupant auto travel are reduced in comparison to the full complement of prior proposed land uses (no C -T Zone, surf wave basin, or hotel). 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- and golf cart- oriented environments from auto - oriented environments. The Project will 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 will minimize barriers to pedestrian and golf cart access and interconnectivity. URBAN CROSSROADS 5 Without Project Employment With Project Employment VMT Interacting with CVAG Area 15,173,739 15,179,349 CVAG Area Population 510,550 510,550 CVAG Area Employment 193,090 193,203 VMT / Service Population 21.56 21.57 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 21.57. The project's effect on VMT (for non-residential uses) is considered significant because it results in a cumulative link - level boundary CVAG VMT per service population increase 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. The Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities. and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA, 2021) provides information on individual measures for potential reduction in VMT. Consistent with the February 2021 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, reductions in project -generated VMT could be realized via a combination of design elements to enhance bicycle / golf cart / pedestrian accommodations and internal site connections between the commercial corner, golf clubhouse, and residences. However, the effectiveness of these strategies to reduce single -occupant auto travel are reduced in comparison to the full complement of prior proposed land uses (no C -T Zone, surf wave basin, or hotel). 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- and golf cart- oriented environments from auto - oriented environments. The Project will 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 will minimize barriers to pedestrian and golf cart access and interconnectivity. URBAN CROSSROADS 5 CM Wave Development, LLC May 31, 2023 The Project's implementation of these measures could provide for a potential reduction in Project home based VMT of 3%. Project design features could therefore potentially reduce the project home-based VMT per capita of 13.14 to 12.75, which is still higher than the City's threshold of 11.03 VMT per capita. In addition, the golf -related VMT / SP of 21.57 impact is not eliminated by the 3% VMT reduction. CONCLUSION The Project evaluated in this supplemental assessment does not change existing General Plan land use or zoning designations for the site, consistent with the approved Andalusia Specific Plan and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310). It consists of a commercial corner (60,000 square feet of retail), an 18 -hole golf course, and up to 750 residential units. In summary, travel demand modeling of VMT for the Project based upon City of La Quinta guidelines indicates a potential impact for residential uses and golf uses. With project design features, the VMT could potentially be reduced, but the VMT impacts are not eliminated, as anticipated in the CORAL MOUNTAIN ALTERNATIVES TRIP GENERATION AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS COMPARISON letter prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (May 2021). If you have any questions, please contact Marlie at (714) 585-0574 or John at (949) 375-2435. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. John Kain, AICP Principal Attachments URBAN CROSSROADS 0 Marlie Whiteman, P.E. Senior Associate URBAN I CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN S&'" AVE Club at Coral Mountain Residential Land Area: ± 193.7 Acres Commercial Land Area : ± 7.7 Acres Golf Course Area : ± 1$3.0 Acres Total Project Area : ± 384.4 Acres 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg R7llfEliANCE URBAN CROSSROADS 4709 f 4692.'q \ 4705 4711~ 4708 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Vehicle MilPLi%gxl4FG�kM"q1q EMffl ]2:AMfiUAREA RIWAINIRAlMIrAMMIMMUS 4721 I 4734 I 4745 I 4759 I 4765 I ' ` 4807 4785 � �4816 4746 4761 4766 4780 S4796 4725 4739 '- ; 4752 4767 4781 4809 A\ 4740 I 4757 I 4772 I 4784 I 4801 4722 4741 4736 4756 4751 4771 4787 4803 -F 4808 4773 4783 4798 [ — 4804 4769 4786 h � a 4799 YIVL� �• '�i F �. 4753 4774 4788 4729 - -_ X4713 is f 14738 s S'I 4764 4776 4790 4747 X4742 4754 "'4775 4791 - -• � X4731 / � 4642 I 4743 Source: Es�i� Maxar, Geot4ye� Earthsta r Geogr4aphics, CN Y. DS�USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, a+ d the GIS User Co LEGEND EXAMPLE OF RIVTAM LOW VMT TAZ RIVTAM TAZ ENCOMPASSING CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT SEPARATE TAZ ADDED FOR PROJECT REPRESENTATION IN RIVTAM 12615 - 01 - TAZ. mxd 15455 - 01 - study area.dwg 8 11 4806 4810 4812 4813 L7 VK�iH111 Cft QSSftQAPS Water Supply Assessment for the Proposed Coral Mountain Project Prepared for: z Coachella Valley Water District P.O. Box 1058 Coachella, CA 92236 Prepared by: MSA Consulting Inc. 34200 Bob Hope Dr Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 August 2023 Approved by Coachella Valley Water District Board of Directors On September 12, 2023 Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables. 1 Summary and Requirements......................................................................... 1.1 Regulatory Requirements........................................................................... 1.1.1 Senate Bill 610...................................................................................... 1.1.2 Senate Bill 1262.................................................................................... 1.2 Water Management Planning Documents .................................................. 1.2.1 Urban Water Management Planning Act .............................................. 1.2.2 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act ........................................ 1.2.3 Groundwater Replenishment............................................................... 2 Public Water System..................................................................................... 2.1 Coachella Valley Water District................................................................... 2.1.2 Coachella Valley Water District — Potable Water Distribution Systems 2.2 Coachella Valley Hydrology......................................................................... 3 Public Water System — Existing Supply and Demand ..................................... 3.1 Groundwater............................................................................................... 3.1.1 Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin .................................................... 3.1.2 Groundwater Demand.......................................................................... 3.1.3 Groundwater Sustainability.................................................................. 3.2 Imported Water.......................................................................................... 3.2.1 Colorado River Water........................................................................... 3.2.2 State Water Project.............................................................................. 3.2.3 Other SWP Water................................................................................. 3.3 Surface Water............................................................................................. 3.3.1 River/Stream Diversion........................................................................ 3.3.2 Stormwater Capture............................................................................. 3.4 Wastewater and Recycled Water................................................................ 3.5 Conservation............................................................................................... 3.6 Landscape Ordinance.................................................................................. 3.7 Water Shortage Contingency Planning........................................................ 4 Public Water System — Projected Supply and Demand .................................. 4.1 Projected Urban Demand and Supply......................................................... 2 El .4 .5 .6 .6 .7 .7 .7 .8 .9 10 10 11 12 13 13 14 16 16 22 22 25 26 27 27 27 28 29 29 29 30 30 4.2 Normal, Single -Dry, Multiple -Dry Year Comparison ........................ 5 Project Description............................................................................ 6 Project Water Demands.................................................................... 6.1 Projected Indoor Residential Water Demand .................................. 6.2 Projected Indoor Commercial and Industrial Water Demand.......... 6.3 Projected Outdoor Irrigation Water Demand .................................. 6.4 Projected Outdoor Water Features Demand ................................... 6.5 Projected Total Water Demand ....................................................... 6.6 Projected Water Sources................................................................. 6.7 Conservation Measures................................................................... 6.7.1 Desert Landscaping & Drought Tolerant Plants ........................ 6.7.2 Project Specific Water Conservation Measures ........................ 6.7.3 Golf Course Irrigation System Conservation ............................. 7 Availability of Sufficient Supplies...................................................... 7.1 Water Supply Assessment............................................................... 7.2 Requirement for Written Verification of Water Supply Availability 8 References........................................................................................ 3 31 34 38 38 39 39 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 46 List of Figures Figure 2-1: Coachella Valley Water District Boundary and Cities..........................................................11 Figure 2-2: Coachella Valley Water District Domestic Water Service Areas .......................................... 12 Figure 3-1: Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin and Subbasins...........................................................15 Figure 5-1: Project Regional Location Map............................................................................................ 35 Figure 5-2: Project Vicinity Map............................................................................................................ 36 Figure5-3: Project Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 37 List of Tables Table 2-1: Current and Projected Population for CVWD's Service Area ................................................ 12 Table 2-2: Monthly Average Climate Data for Palm Springs..................................................................13 Table 2-3: Monthly Average Climate Data for Thermal.........................................................................13 Table 3-1: Groundwater Storage in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin......................................16 Table 3-2: CVWD Groundwater Demand in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin ..........................16 Table 3-3: CVWD Colorado River Entitlements (AFY)............................................................................ 24 Table 3-4: Colorado River Deliveries to CVWD at the Imperial Dam/Coachella Canal ........................... 25 Table 3-5: Groundwater Recharge of Colorado River Water Deliveries to CVWD at the Imperial Dam/Coachella Canal............................................................................................................................ 25 Table 3-6: State Water Project Table A Allocations............................................................................... 26 Table 4-1: CVWD Projected Urban Retail Potable Demands................................................................. 30 Table 4-2: CVWD Projected Urban Water Supplies............................................................................... 31 Table 4-3: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison..................................................................... 31 Table 5-1: Project Land Use Summary................................................................................................... 38 Table 6-1: Projected Indoor Residential Water Demand....................................................................... 39 Table 6-2: Projected Indoor Commercial and Industrial Water Demand ............................................... 39 Table 6-3: Projected Outdoor Irrigation Water Demand.......................................................................40 Table 6-4: Projected Outdoor Recreational Water Demand.................................................................40 Table 6-5: Projected Total Water Demand............................................................................................ 41 Table 6-6: Projected Water Sources...................................................................................................... 42 4 Summary and Requirements The environmental review of the Coral Mountain Project (Project) is being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The City is the Lead Agency for the planning and environmental review of the proposed Project. The City has identified the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) as the Public Water System (PWS) that will supply water for the proposed Project and has requested that CVWD assist in preparing a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) as part of the environmental review for the Project. The Project is in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. The property is generally vacant and undeveloped with CVWD irrigation mains, numerous dirt roads and hiking trails. Various desert vegetation is found throughout the site. The site is bounded to the east by Madison Street, to the north by 58th Avenue, existing levees and the Coral Mountain to the west and southwest, and 60th Avenue to the south. The Project proposes to develop approximately 387 acres of vacant land to include three planning areas: Planning Area III (PA -III) Residential, Planning Area V (PA -V) Neighborhood Commercial, and Planning Area VI (PA -VI) Golf/Open Space. PA -III consists of approximately 191.8 acres of land and will allow the construction of up to 750 single family attached and detached dwellings and affiliated amenities. In addition to residential acreage, PA III also includes a 5.9 -acre sports club, a 4 -acre golf club, a 3 -acre active amenity park to include both passive and active recreation activities, two restaurants located inside the sports club and golf club, a 12 -acre lake and 2 acres of golf maintenance area. PA -V consists of 7.7 acres of land that will include 60,000 square feet of publicly accessible neighborhood commercial building space. PA -VI consists of approximately 184.9 acres of land to be developed into a championship length 18 -hole golf course and ancillary facilities such as a golf academy, practice range, chipping, putting facilities, and irrigation lakes. This WSA determined that the total projected water demand for the Project is 1,217.01 AFY, or 3.14 acre-feet per acre. This WSA demonstrates that sufficient water supplies exist, or will exist based on current water planning assumptions, to meet the projected demands of the Project, in addition to current and future projected water demands within CVWD's service area in normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years over a 20 -year projection. This WSA will be reviewed every five years, or in the event that the water planning assumptions have changed, until the Project begins construction to ensure it remains accurate and no significant changes to either the Project or available water supply has occurred. Consistent with the provisions of SB 610, neither this WSA nor its approval shall be construed to create a right or entitlement to water service or any specific level of water service, and shall not impose, expand, or limit any duty concerning the obligation of CVWD to provide certain service to its existing customers or to any future potential customers. This WSA does not constitute an agreement to provide water service to the Project, and does not entitle the Project, Project Applicant, or any other person or entity to any right, priority or 5 allocation in any supply, capacity, or facility. To receive water service, the Project will be subject to an agreement with CVWD, together with any and all applicable fees, charges, plans and specifications, conditions, and any and all other applicable CVWD requirements in place and as amended from time to time. Nor does anything in this WSA prevent or otherwise interfere with CVWD's discretionary authority to declare a water shortage emergency in accordance with the Water Code. 1.1 Regulatory Requirements This WSA provides an assessment of the availability of sufficient water supplies during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years over a 20 -year projection to meet the projected demands of the Project, in addition to existing and planned future water demands of CVWD, as required by Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 1262. This WSA also includes identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply for the Project and quantities of water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, contracts, and agreements. This WSA has been prepared in compliance with the requirements under SB 610 and SB 1262 by MSA Consulting in consultation with CVWD and the City. This WSA does not relieve the Project from complying with all applicable state, county, city, and local ordinances or regulations, including the CVWD Landscape Ordinance and indoor water use performance standards provided in the California Water Code (CWC). This WSA will be reviewed every five years, or in the event that the water planning assumptions have changed, until the Project begins construction on all planning areas, to ensure it remains accurate and no significant changes to either the Project or available water supply has occurred. The Project applicant shall notify CVWD when construction of all planning areas begins. 1.1.1 Senate Bill 610 On January 1, 2002, Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was enacted and codified in CWC Section 10910 et seq., requiring the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for certain new development projects. As stated in SB 610, the purpose of a WSA is to determine whether the PWS's "total projected water supplies available during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry water years during a 20 -year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the PWS's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses." CWC Section 10912 defines a "project" as any of the following: • A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; • A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space; 0 • A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; • A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park, planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor space; • A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 -dwelling unit project (about 250 acre-feet per year). The intent of SB 610 is to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land -use decisions made by cities and counties. 1.1.2 Senate Bill 1262 On January 1, 2017, Senate Bill 1262 (SB 1262) was enacted and amended CWC Section 10910, requiring that information regarding the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) be included in a WSA if the water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater from a basin that is not adjudicated and was designated medium- or high-priority by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1.2 Water Management Planning Documents CVWD has prepared long-term planning documents to project future was use and manage the water supplies within its service area. These planning documents can be used for compliance with SB 610 and SB 1262 and are discussed in further detail in the following sections. ,2.1 Urban Water Management Planning Act The Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA) was established by Assembly Bill 797 (AB 797) on September 21, 1983, and passage of this law recognized that water is a limited resource, and that efficient water use and conservation would be actively pursued throughout the State. The UWMPA requires that municipal water suppliers providing either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more the 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFY), prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years which defines their current and future water use, source of supply, source reliability, and existing conservation measures. 1.2.1.1 Coachella Valley Water District Urban Water Management Plan CVWD prepared and adopted its 2005, 2010, and 2015 UWMPs to document CVWD's projected water demands and plans for delivering water supplies to its water service area during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years over a 20 -year projection. The six urban water suppliers in the Coachella Valley (CVWD, Coachella Water Authority, Desert Water Agency (DWA), Indio Water Authority (IWA), Mission Springs Water District (MSWD), and Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company) collaboratively prepared the 2020 Coachella Valley Regional UWMP, including regional and individual agency content and other necessary elements 7 as set forth in DWR's 2020 UWMP Guidebook. The 2020 Coachella Valley Regional UWMP was submitted to DWR on July 1, 2021. DWR accepted CVWD's portion of the Regional UWMP on May 17, 2022. 1.2.2 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act In September 2014, Governor Brown signed three bills into law: Assembly Bill 1739, Senate Bill 1319, and Senate Bill 1168, which became collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), creating a framework for sustainable, local groundwater management for the first time in California history. DWR evaluated and prioritized the 515 groundwater basins identified in Bulletin 118, and 94 of these groundwater basins were designated as high- or medium -priority basins, as of December 2019, requiring them to be sustainably managed within 20 years. SGMA required local authorities to form local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) by June 30, 2017 to evaluate conditions in their local groundwater basins and adopt locally -based Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs), or Alternatives to a GSP (Alternative Plans), tailored to their regional economic and environmental needs. As defined by DWR, the subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin are the Indio, Mission Creek, San Gorgonio Pass, and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins. CVWD's service area overlies the Indio, Mission Creek, and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins. The Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins have been designated medium -priority by DWR and are subject to the requirements of SGMA. The Desert Hot Springs Subbasin has been designated very low -priority by DWR and is not subject to the requirements of SGMA. The Project is located within the Indio Subbasin, which has been designated as a medium priority groundwater basin by DWR under SGMA. 1.2.2.1 Alternative Plan for the Indio Subbasin Twenty years before the adoption of SGMA, CVWD began the development of the initial water management plan for the Coachella Valley in 1994 after recognizing the need to sustainably manage the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. The original planning document is the 2002 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP). The 2002 CVWMP was updated in 2010 and adopted in 2012. CVWD, DWA, CWA, and IWA, are the Indio Subbasin GSAs designated by DWR for their respective service areas. On December 29, 2016, CVWD, DWA, CWA, and IWA collaboratively submitted the 2010 CVWMP Update as an Alternative Plan for the Indio Subbasin, with an associated Bridge Document and supporting documents, to DWR for review and evaluation. On July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative Plan for the Indio Subbasin satisfies the objectives of SGMA and notified the Indio Subbasin GSAs that the Alternative Plan was approved, and that they would be required to submit an assessment and update of the Alternative Plan pursuant to the SGMA by January 1, 2022, and every five years thereafter. The 2022 Alternative Plan Update for the Indio Subbasin was submitted to DWR on December 29, 2021. On February 1, 2018, DWR notified all GSAs who submitted Alternative Plans that they would be required to submit annual reports pursuant to SGMA by April 1, 2018, and every year thereafter. 0 CVWD, DWA, CWA, and IWA have collaboratively prepared and submitted the Indio Subbasin Annual Reports for Water Years 2016-2017 through 2021-2022. 1.2.2.2 Alternative Plan for the Mission Creek Subbasin In 2004, CVWD, DWA, and MSWD reached an agreement and created the Mission Creek Subbasin Management Committee (Management Committee). The Management Committee jointly prepared the 2013 Mission Creek -Garnet Hill Subbasin Water Management Plan (2013 MC -GH WMP). On December 29, 2016, CVWD, DWA, and MSWD collaboratively submitted the 2013 MC -GH WMP as an Alternative Plan for the Mission Creek Subbasin, with an associated Bridge Document and supporting documents, to DWR for review and evaluation. On July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative Plan for the Mission Creek Subbasin satisfies the objectives of SGMA and notified the Management Committee that the Alternative Plan was approved, and that they would be required to submit an assessment and update of the Alternative Plan pursuant to SGMA by January 1, 2022, and every five years thereafter. The 2022 Alternative Plan Update for the Mission Creek Subbasin was submitted to DWR on December 30, 2021. On February 1, 2018, DWR notified all GSAs who submitted Alternative Plans that they would be required to submit annual reports pursuant to SGMA by April 1, 2018, and every year thereafter. CVWD, DWA, and MSWD have collaboratively prepared and submitted the Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Reports for Water Years 2016-2017 through 2021-2022. 1.2.3 Groundwater Replenishment State Water Code (SWC) 31630-31639 provides CVWD with the authority to levy and collect water replenishment assessments to implement groundwater replenishment programs (GRPs) within its jurisdictional boundary. Groundwater replenishment is necessary to mitigate overdraft of the groundwater basin and associated undesirable results. The jurisdictional areas that benefit from the GRPs, and where CVWD levies replenishment assessments on groundwater production, are termed Areas of Benefit (AOBs). There are three AOBs within CVWD's boundary: the Mission Creek Subbasin AOB, the West Whitewater River Subbasin AOB, and the East Whitewater River Subbasin AOB. The GRP for the West Whitewater River Subbasin AOB was formed in 1976, the GRP for the Mission Creek Subbasin AOB was formed in 2003, and the GRP for the East Whitewater River Subbasin AOB was formed in 2004. The Project is located within the East Whitewater River Subbasin AOB. 1.2.3.1 Annual Engineer's Reports CVWD is required to prepare and present to its Board of Directors annually an Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment reporting on the conditions of the groundwater supplies and recommend Replenishment Assessment Charges (RACs) to be levied upon groundwater production greater than 25 AFY within each AOB in accordance with SWC 31630- 31639. The Engineer's Report must include the following information: a summary of the conditions of groundwater supplies; the need for replenishment; a description of the E replenishment programs, including the source and amount of replenishment waters, the costs associated with the GRP, the areas directly and indirectly benefited by the GRP, and the amount of groundwater produced in each area during the prior year; and a recommendation for the RAC to be levied on each AOB. The 2023-2024 Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment was prepared and presented to CVWD's Board of Directors on April 25, 2023. Public Water System The City is the Lead Agency for the planning and environmental review of the proposed Coral Mountain Project (Project). The City has identified the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) as the Public Water System (PWS) that will supply water for the proposed Project, and has requested that CVWD assist in preparing a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) as part of the environmental review for the Project. !.1 Coachella Valley Water District CVWD was established in 1918 under the County Water District Act provisions of the California Water Code. CVWD provides water related services for domestic water, wastewater collection and treatment, recycled water, agricultural irrigation water, drainage management, imported water supply, groundwater replenishment, stormwater management, flood control, and water conservation. CVWD's boundary encompasses approximately 640,000 acres as shown in Figure 2-1, mostly within Riverside County, but also extending into northern Imperial and San Diego Counties. 10 Figure 2-1: Coachella Valley Water District Boundary and Cities �. +5En Hot .I I, Sky Varlet' . zrk T ldyllw+ld' '•_ Itl�S . I ._:r SPr r..:: HTf, r_1.10rs ER7 RAN,, HO I'A ns Mrd Miles Sar � tir ti '' P 8rrnardin❑ . . Mounr'a+ni Turkey Flar Pfr �'u.473rys r?�':=Asir.' Cuttcnw��d .Lfeun!a.+:s M, Sno vere vaIJer Ma nrobra Cany7n Orq,ap'� Rfvunrains LL � t v, �- �� � RrnesiiupR0.r� I r I' ---------T r.�, ¢ Sarre9a I Salton City 1 8adra n 30i5/r A 2.1.2 Coachella Valley Water District — Potable Water Distribution Systems CVWD has two domestic water service areas that serve potable water to its local communities: the Cove Communities system and Improvement District No. 8 (ID -8) as shown in Figure 2-2. CVWD previously had three water systems, but ID -11 was consolidated into the Cove Communities system in March 2021. CVWD had approximately 113,481 domestic water connections and served approximately 91,230acre-feet (AF) of water in 2022. CVWD serves all of the Cities of Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta, and a portion of Indio, Coachella, and Cathedral City. Other areas served with domestic water by CVWD include a portion of lands near Desert Hot Springs and the Indio Hills. CVWD also serves other unincorporated communities including Thermal, Mecca, Oasis, Desert Shores, Salton Sea Beach, Salton City, North Shore, Bombay Beach, Hot Mineral Springs, and other portions of unincorporated Riverside and Imperial Counties. The Project is located within CVWD's Cove Communities domestic water distribution system. 11 Figure 2-2: Coachella Valley Water District Domestic Water Service Areas The 2020 Regional UMWP projected that population in CVWD's urban water service area would increase as shown in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Current and Projected Population for CVWD's Service Area Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 2.2 Coachella Valley Hydrology The bulk of natural groundwater replenishment comes from runoff from the adjacent mountains. Climate in the Coachella Valley is characterized by low humidity, high summer temperatures, and mild dry winters. Average annual precipitation varies from 3 to 6 inches of rain on the Coachella Valley floor to more than 30 inches in the surrounding mountains. Most of the precipitation occurs between December and February, except for summer thundershowers. Prevailing winds in the area are usually gentle, but occasionally increase to velocities as high as 30 miles per hour or more. Mid -summer temperatures commonly exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), frequently 12 reach 110 IF, and periodically reach or exceed 120 IF, and the average winter temperature is approximately 60 IF as shown in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3. Table 2-2: Monthly Average Climate Data for Palm Springs Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 1 National Weather Service Forecast, Station Palm Springs Airport, 1998-2020 z CIMIS Station 208 — La Quinta II, 2007-2020 Table 2-3: Monthly Average Climate Data for Thermal RA Ikeb �M ar Apo&AayJ_E _' Aug Sep �t Nov JNm- (F)1 :� :. •� �� �: l •0 392.7 .• :• (°F)1 rETo (in)1 � � : �(ion)2 Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 1 National Weather Service Forecast, Station Palm Springs Airport, 1998-2020 z CIMIS Station 208 — La Quinta II, 2007-2020 Table 2-3: Monthly Average Climate Data for Thermal Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 1 National Weather Service Forecast, Station Desert Resorts Regional Airport, 1990-2020 z CIMIS Station 218—Thermal South, 2010-2020 3 Public Water System - Existing Supply and Demand Currently, all of Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) urban potable water uses are supplied using groundwater. In addition to groundwater, CVWD has imported water supplies from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River, and recycled water from water reclamation plants. These imported and recycled water supplies are used to meet CVWD's non -potable water demands and to replenish the groundwater basin. 3.1 Groundwater Groundwater is the principal source of potable supply in the Coachella Valley and CVWD obtains groundwater from both the Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. CVWD has the legal authority to manage the groundwater basin within its boundaries under the County Water District Law (California Water Code section 30000, et seq.) and as a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Groundwater, to be supplied to the Project, is also used by other domestic water suppliers and private pumpers for crop irrigation, fish farms, duck clubs, golf course irrigation, greenhouses, and industrial uses in the Coachella Valley. 13 Ikeb �M ar Apo&AayJ_E ugAkep Oct Nov Dec Annu71ET 392.7 Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 1 National Weather Service Forecast, Station Desert Resorts Regional Airport, 1990-2020 z CIMIS Station 218—Thermal South, 2010-2020 3 Public Water System - Existing Supply and Demand Currently, all of Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) urban potable water uses are supplied using groundwater. In addition to groundwater, CVWD has imported water supplies from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River, and recycled water from water reclamation plants. These imported and recycled water supplies are used to meet CVWD's non -potable water demands and to replenish the groundwater basin. 3.1 Groundwater Groundwater is the principal source of potable supply in the Coachella Valley and CVWD obtains groundwater from both the Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. CVWD has the legal authority to manage the groundwater basin within its boundaries under the County Water District Law (California Water Code section 30000, et seq.) and as a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Groundwater, to be supplied to the Project, is also used by other domestic water suppliers and private pumpers for crop irrigation, fish farms, duck clubs, golf course irrigation, greenhouses, and industrial uses in the Coachella Valley. 13 3.1.1 Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is bounded on the north and east by the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains, on the south and west by the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, and on the south by the Salton Sea. At the west end of the San Gorgonio Pass, between Beaumont and Banning, the basin boundary is defined by a surface drainage divide separating the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin from the Beaumont Groundwater Basin of the Upper Santa Ana Drainage Area. The southern boundary is formed primarily by the watershed of the Mecca Hills and by the northwest shoreline of the Salton Sea running between the Santa Rosa Mountains and Mortmar. Between the Salton Sea and Travertine Rock, at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains, the southern boundary crosses the Riverside County Line into Imperial and San Diego Counties. Although there is interflow of groundwater throughout the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, fault barriers, constrictions in the basin profile, and areas of low permeability limit and control movement of groundwater. Based on these factors, the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has been divided into subbasins and subareas as described by DWR in 1964 and 2003, and by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 1974 3.1.1.1 Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin — Subbasins As shown on Figure 3-1, the subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin are the Indio, Mission Creek, San Gorgonio Pass, and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins. The subbasins are defined without regard to water quantity or quality. They delineate areas underlain by formations which readily yield stored groundwater through water wells and offer natural reservoirs for the regulation of water supplies. The boundaries between subbasins within the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin are generally defined by faults that impede the lateral movement of groundwater. Minor subareas have also been delineated based on one or more of the following geologic or hydrologic characteristics: types of water -bearing formations, water quality, areas of confined groundwater, forebay areas, groundwater divides, and surface drainage divides. 14 Figure 3-1: Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin and Subbasins OeaertH �� 7 1 sP�nes wl`ryowapar-Nwrh Palm y Sprinea `\ A Ceeamn ' CoaCheYla Va"ey Groundwa[ar gamin Geigoniv Pass Su4haarcro idylW rl It. Coachella Yalley Groundwater Baal 1 _ l �i {Inola Suhbasln M.Un Z sen Memsnninn Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin w'.enklo r {Mission Creek Subbasin} O, V� CoasheBNyapeyGoundwater0aain {IJeaart Hal Spr9nga 8uhhaslnj n.ln ••Rancho neuea - Mirage ar nd— \ . . . . A weir aeie°' OmrApla Valroy Gra..dwater 6asrn Wdto Source: Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2020-2021 The following is a list of the subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin as designated by DWR in Bulletin 118: • Indio Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.01) • Mission Creek Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.02) • San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.03) • Desert Hot Springs Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.04) DWR designated the Indio, Mission Creek, and San Gorgonio Pass Subbasins as medium -priority, and the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin as very low priority. None of the subbasins are adjudicated or in a state of overdraft. In 1964, DWR estimated that the subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin contained approximately 39,200,000 acre-feet (AF) of water in the first 1,000 feet below the groundwater surface. The capacities of the subbasins are shown in Table 3-1. 15 r [rent camp � 0 +Yy,_ e..en \ •.ChacoYate Va11ey `-. Groundwater 1 Z• ., Oaeia . 5 Baain '• ``'v •. Rlrusluk • .-------------_—.__"__._--------------------•-"" - �-----_•.. 1�----� `---- --- •-- .. -� ---- rckrerslee ----t==---- ` sen Orego 1 _ � Imperltl ���• _ - ,inn 5M1MBP1 'Salton sea coach . .rKwnbin W §I Salton Sea �`� Groundwater Basi Q Indio Subbasin © Ch6tblal6 ValkyGfoundwaler Basln Faull LinaFebruary ■ 2022 Figure 1-1 QSan Gorgonio PassSubbastri © OrocoplaValley GroundwaterBasrn Carirorn.a::ounly A Coachella Valley Mission Creek Subbasin W'esl SaRon Sea GroundwalerBasin .-.-'GkTODD= Groundwater Basin Q D"ad HolSomgs Subbasin DARD OUIRRAN G R 0 U H 0 W A r E R and Subbasins Source: Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2020-2021 The following is a list of the subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin as designated by DWR in Bulletin 118: • Indio Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.01) • Mission Creek Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.02) • San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.03) • Desert Hot Springs Subbasin (Subbasin 7-21.04) DWR designated the Indio, Mission Creek, and San Gorgonio Pass Subbasins as medium -priority, and the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin as very low priority. None of the subbasins are adjudicated or in a state of overdraft. In 1964, DWR estimated that the subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin contained approximately 39,200,000 acre-feet (AF) of water in the first 1,000 feet below the groundwater surface. The capacities of the subbasins are shown in Table 3-1. 15 Table 3-1: Groundwater Storage in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Subbasin/Subarea Indio Subbasin Palm Springs Subarea 4,600,000 Thousand Palms Subarea 1,800,000 Oasis Subarea 3,000,000 Garnet Hill Subarea 1,000,000 Thermal Subarea 19,400,000 Mission Creek Subbasin 2,600,000 San Gorgonio Subbasin 2,700,000 Desert Hot Springs Subbasin Ole 4,100,000 Source: DWR Bulletin 108 (1964) 1 First 1,000 feet below ground surface. (DWR, 1964) 3.1.2 Groundwater Demand Groundwater is the principal source of potable supply in the Coachella Valley and CVWD extracts groundwater from both the Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, which is continually replenished by CVWD. CVWD's groundwater demands in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin for 2018 through 2022 are shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2: CVWD Groundwater Demand in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin 3.1.3 Groundwater Sustainability Long-term sustainability is typically assessed based on changes in groundwater storage over a historical period on the order of ten to twenty years that includes wet and dry periods. 3.1.3.1 Indio Subbasin The 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update identified 57 Key Wells across the subbasin to represent local groundwater levels, shown in Figure 3-2. The plan set metrics to demonstrate sustainability, including a Minimum Threshold (MT) at each Key Well. MTs are numeric values used to define undesirable results under SGMA. In WY 2021-2022, water levels in all 57 Key Wells remained above their respective MTs. This confirms that the significant undesirable results of chronic lowering of groundwater levels, depletion of groundwater storage, and potential subsidence are not occurring in the Indio Subbasin. 16 Figure 3-2: Water Level Monitoring Wells in the Indio Subbasin v a O o 0 r. 8 4o KW_oozKW6.,004 KW_007 n 0 8 KW 908 KW 013 Kw Qss 00 Kw_Qes o�j °❑a ° ° �Kw o14 KW 023 KYY_006 °❑ :D❑ Hw_877 Kw 909 ° afl � 7W_016" XW_018 ❑ HW ♦)17 ° ° ° ❑ ❑ 0 _KW81 Q to ° � KW 012 �KW_0240 KW,025 KW_0$7 CS 0 000 K9Y_026 KW_G19 4a C°n KW_62Q _021 ❑ KW_O SQ KW 0 0 KW_27 ° °° 001 ° .02B KW 026 KW Kyy, o ° Q 039 KW 033 KW 639 KW 07I ° []� ® ❑ KW MO KW_035 KW Q3B ❑ KW 0 0 041_ ❑ I(W OAT KW 077 °00 PKW 0434 ° RW_ua4 0 KW_045 KW_1){6 off° O D v Op KW_Qa9 KW 046 �7[Vd 1357 KW 090 ° ❑ 00 a a 4 Q HW 05] NW_v7 aa KWOfi2 Os6 (3 Kw 054 C O Kw ose tar7.rsllae - �1 Riverside n0lego—______ j 0 --- Iln,mial I j KW 067 I I o Otw mone"ad Wells I� Weli Elevation Monitoring Locations in the Q Indio Subbesln U --I CalirOmia S°unly GRnUNdW ArFR Indio 5Subbasinagpnwnal hlnneuring ngencY Key WONwelwi r�lw6ns MorOtpreA IlenRu9d 6110nlrofyd KW Coachellanella valley Water olslncl _=z a.5a aos l:rtaChP.lIA Wa}er Authnnty n 4 a �eserl Water Agency d 92 36 India V'19[ef AulhaRh' 7 2a 2E Mission Springs V4a[er plslreci 0 2 2 70.1ST 317 IS Kav Well March 2023 Figure 3-1 Source: 2022 Alternative Plan Update for the Indio Subbasin Figure 3-3 shows the historical annual change in groundwater storage from 1970 through Water Year (WY) 2020-2021 in the Indio Subbasin. The figure also shows annual inflows, outflows, groundwater production, and 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in groundwater storage. During periods of high artificial recharge, the change in storage tends to be positive. In dry years or periods of high groundwater pumping, the change in storage can be negative. As shown in Figure 3-3, annual inflows to the Indio Subbasin are highly variable with years of high inflows corresponding to wet years when SWP delivery volumes were greater. Higher inflows in the mid -19805 occurred when the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) commenced large-scale advanced water deliveries to the Indio Subbasin. After an extended period of decline, both the 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in storage have shown positive trends since 2009, and the 10 -year running -average has been positive since 2017. 17 876 Source: 2022 Alternative Plan Update for the Indio Subbasin Figure 3-3 shows the historical annual change in groundwater storage from 1970 through Water Year (WY) 2020-2021 in the Indio Subbasin. The figure also shows annual inflows, outflows, groundwater production, and 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in groundwater storage. During periods of high artificial recharge, the change in storage tends to be positive. In dry years or periods of high groundwater pumping, the change in storage can be negative. As shown in Figure 3-3, annual inflows to the Indio Subbasin are highly variable with years of high inflows corresponding to wet years when SWP delivery volumes were greater. Higher inflows in the mid -19805 occurred when the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) commenced large-scale advanced water deliveries to the Indio Subbasin. After an extended period of decline, both the 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in storage have shown positive trends since 2009, and the 10 -year running -average has been positive since 2017. 17 Figure 3-3: Historical Annual Change in Groundwater Storage in the Indio Subbasin Source: Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022 As shown in Figure 3-4, groundwater levels have increased significantly in the Indio Subbasin from WY 2008-2009 to WY 2021-2022. The Indio Subbasin Annual Report uses 2009 water levels as a metric of sustainability because historical low groundwater levels occurred in the years around 2009 throughout most of the Indio Subbasin. The Indio Subbasin shows a long-term positive trend in sustainability resulting from implementation of the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan. IN 700.E "0.000 500 000 400.000 � a00,0o0 0 u_ 200.000 a 190.00 - - 0 I •1 90,000 Z00.00 22;?t;2P.ltiFUI5im;"21�2m52289M2aPIN aREBoto988o19uS'V�2;"2r2 Nr:�"rJ �vrrnwwwrno�wr w aiwwwmrncnw�wwwrnv �rnra0000 OO O O OO NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNrVNN NN N N N N N N N N N N N N W W B A W W C C A B A D W W W a W D C D C C C A C W W W W WAD D A B A W D C D B W B D C C B W B W D D C Water Year Now Values shp prix to- 28+7 an on a earendar year basis. Latrar9 balowthe years ln%caa saerarrante Varay Mw Yaar Typo. W = Vkt A - Atom Normal 9 = Below NQFMM D -Dry C' Gni®Ily Dry Annual Inflows 10 -year Average Change in Storage March 2023 Figure 7-2 TCDD_ Rnnuaf Oueows - — 2Qyaar Avbraga Changs In Storage Historical Annual Change in Groundwater Storage GrounRwater Production Annual Change in Storage GROUNDWATER in the Indio Subbasin Source: Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022 As shown in Figure 3-4, groundwater levels have increased significantly in the Indio Subbasin from WY 2008-2009 to WY 2021-2022. The Indio Subbasin Annual Report uses 2009 water levels as a metric of sustainability because historical low groundwater levels occurred in the years around 2009 throughout most of the Indio Subbasin. The Indio Subbasin shows a long-term positive trend in sustainability resulting from implementation of the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan. IN Figure 3-4: Change in Groundwater Elevation from Water Year 2008-2009 through Water Year 2021-2022 in the Indio Subbasin �awr.n�Vv "r�"' "r•T. U � x inpn rE�.aw L S. wcpkn �mmt— fS� eryy 1 ' mrm ;.N m Source: Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022 N awvuwe..., N-Tw C�eryp IF.MI '�. 19y4ro.wn ileow,m O.c w ev [�san+a O,vn� C]o-s O s�eo [�aowa D mw -+v 3.1.3.2 Mission Creek Subbasin The 2022 Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan Update identified nine Key Wells across the subbasin to represent local groundwater levels, as shown in Figure 3-5. The plan set MTs at each Key Well to demonstrate sustainability. In WY 2021-2022, water levels in all nine Key Wells remained above their respective MTs, as shown in the hydrographs in Figure 3-5. This confirms that the significant undesirable results of chronic lowering of groundwater levels, depletion of groundwater storage, and potential subsidence are not occurring in the Mission Creek Subbasin. 19 Figure 3-5: Water Level Monitoring Wells in the Mission Creek Subbasin �� a gg r•����RP[>£8RR4elslkkerixr 04PQ3 'rm––– – – – – –– LR�'_ ——------———-- ;----•__-.- - aa aalsaaee ssssyyGGppyygg • – e �Y��Ek#9R���CYkY KYR��� 1�7 117; ...... 1 ` _ 12031 ai/• E'0' � / �`.–––--–––--–– • wars.rn w�viirsr..x>acxr �waesnrt tecessmasm 'nxn :om ��piwra6+�r xe�nacaxa rKm1R ]MexCy� �—� er cxa [awgtY aie NoiSuraM4 arrbre.a 6 AwMdvasF xXn UrWKs NN rta ovmei�q•n-r wme dwisw wrnm�odor� evY p 8 MnWn $eYga Wane boEld •Nas WeA–..-9aoams • wrr4dr 0+d mr rranrte '+ papp wyrryseey-xry ww ��ryysN'as6 Source: 2022 Alternative Plan Update for the Mission Creek Subbasin ------------ 5a6 �!>IR�lRAtnARARfElRRl�Az "�xr ppm awxgavanps u�s.a piagc�draix prae¢W Waw Year 2021.2022 Tne padrm xvnr wg9pNgary isw iso[mY.O: eask�d Coachella Vaey. califomla ew�parrw u. oamrn[agr wvmm�aum Mdern .� Figure 3-6 shows the historical annual change in groundwater storage from 1978 through WY 2021-2022 in the Mission Creek Subbasin. The figure also shows annual inflows, outflows, groundwater production, and 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in groundwater storage. During periods of high artificial recharge, the change in storage tends to be positive. In dry years or periods of high groundwater pumping, the change in storage can be negative. As shown in Figure 3-6, after a period of decline, starting in 2004 both the 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in groundwater storage have shown positive trends. Annual inflows to the Mission Creek Subbasin are highly variable with years of high inflows corresponding to years when SWP delivery volumes were greater. The 20 -year running -average change in storage shows that the Mission Creek Subbasin has been in balance since 2012. 20 �m � -- paeag��aseaaa�s��asse r -,' �. -ITT TOM >` x81roe'aew°n�rtn amesxan 'GRAP-S'NITH NE ARABLE KEY'YEHYJRCSLI O(IJ�f: LL FWit y ANU MINIMUM r fi�4;f50L 0'3 Kf Mm Cask Subbase Anwal Rsport "�xr ppm awxgavanps u�s.a piagc�draix prae¢W Waw Year 2021.2022 Tne padrm xvnr wg9pNgary isw iso[mY.O: eask�d Coachella Vaey. califomla ew�parrw u. oamrn[agr wvmm�aum Mdern .� Figure 3-6 shows the historical annual change in groundwater storage from 1978 through WY 2021-2022 in the Mission Creek Subbasin. The figure also shows annual inflows, outflows, groundwater production, and 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in groundwater storage. During periods of high artificial recharge, the change in storage tends to be positive. In dry years or periods of high groundwater pumping, the change in storage can be negative. As shown in Figure 3-6, after a period of decline, starting in 2004 both the 10 -year and 20 -year running -average change in groundwater storage have shown positive trends. Annual inflows to the Mission Creek Subbasin are highly variable with years of high inflows corresponding to years when SWP delivery volumes were greater. The 20 -year running -average change in storage shows that the Mission Creek Subbasin has been in balance since 2012. 20 Figure 3-6: Historical Annual Change in Groundwater Storage in the Mission Creek Subbasin 8{OM Il 04,000 - — - -- 40.000 � —I m LL zo,oau 0 [40,o0o) m 00 W a1Oo W Oi T �+ Owl co O O O O Q rV V LD 0 C7 N rn rn m rn m e� a e� a 67 6• C D D 0 0 o C 4 n d N N N N N N N "I N N N N Year ®Change in Storage —Total outflow —Groundwater Pumping —10 -Year Average Change in Storage --^Total inffow _20 -Year Average Change in Storage HISTORICAL ANNUAL CHANCE IN Note: Water balance accounting based on calendar year through 2016 and wateryear thereafter. GROUNDWATER STORAGE Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Report Water Year 2021-2022 Coachella Va ev. California este: 112 2023 p..' Na.- CM19t&7354 `t4% 1 ] I Figure 7-3 Source: Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022 Groundwater levels have increased significantly in the Mission Creek Subbasin over the past 10 years from WY 2008-2009 to WY 2021-2022 as shown in Figure 3-7. The Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Report uses 2009 water levels as a metric of sustainability because historical low groundwater levels occurred in the years around 2009 throughout most of the Mission Creek Subbasin. The Mission Creek Subbasin shows a long-term positive trend in sustainability resulting from implementation of the Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan. 21 Figure 3-7: Change in Groundwater Elevation from Water Year 2008-2009 through Water Year 2021-2022 in the Mission Creek Subbasin am o4Po1 ar9 SLR A��!lA lil AxR AxRR%'� ulna �&i 63F9�& µ��sY33�23�1�ffi9 21Ho1 AA Ie F� 23e102 aa 6— '�ru��l�A��ARAA�AAIii�IRI _ uOp1 �����RR�RIi a'zl AIA AIIA.I 361(121 t� ��x�Rl>!R{I AIR lkl Rl AlIR N a c�n<ivlwa+r aee.n•mm�ni Fa�irry eer:n crwk yeca.. IF - •Is ,n.ln [eel i-"nav pw tp aql epp....• 1 ar%r . k ,xrre lewd w� r.. • rrxr �'Ti°r0'°e�� t: - �AN•'I 0 [.I1.11.N[... 2 2 STORAGE IVY 2(IOd3-2W9 TO 4YY 2021.2022 Mp1Wx•g Apercy wcp .drne xw,rr,inr[: x:nc�-knywgl:.:.J.ax ierw J+r+r 0+19^e mwaurlwu.rpxeuryq .•am.nwm•pr,-TyW•SEiC o .. neex ulo to m9.n•tw fxlln[lasu •lp b%M91NN Z �[•'rrow v'>'9anwmr w•W n-..nsa wx'aw gype,y,,. rrnrp S,uMY m+r•aam4p[mar'4. MisSlpn CMek $pppa.a[ Annual Fled LYala[Yeae 2021.20x2 aam apnpv wrsr n -.,Irl rcq was—�v�ae ^�rt4rn1•rNntfY•[l pro5lmlrcmn• � G9ae11e1L�VaAey, Ce e p.• [w,mreypuy rcr[nw —.._ac ma —'M.en lndlydry,reytor.�e ry.eleJ 3'�v.��±xiem lnl[p[aeove [t�rn.,m�rcan ..may// p•1•. LISR91] N. H• CM CM1910T15i • cvrAp.rGY'•,W LAwa.ma,a.e•rea•tiel lM1Ml Mq[�e'afHW6 ...• [«1v NA': xntl.mu v�'a�M✓rlVl,1]Wa-]ppi •N•ew 4wlylaegr�.dua�aa • N.. rratt [r.�+u'OBwrawB nww Yrfmbi l♦ti i Fpu• 7-5 Source: Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022 3.2 Imported Water CVWD has two sources of imported water available: Colorado River water delivered via the Coachella Canal and SWP water exchanged for Colorado River water delivered through the Colorado River Aqueduct. These imported water sources are used to recharge the groundwater basin and as an alternative source to meet non -potable demands from irrigation of agriculture, golf, and urban uses that would have otherwise been met by pumping groundwater. In the future, if urban demand significantly increases relative to non -potable uses, Colorado River water may be treated and delivered directly to customers through CVWD's potable water distribution system. 3.2.1 Colorado River Water Colorado River water has been a significant water supply source for the Indio Subbasin since the Coachella Canal was completed in 1949. CVWD is the only agency in the Indio Subbasin that receives Colorado River water allocations. The Colorado River is managed and operated in accordance with the Law of the River, a collection of interstate compacts, federal and state legislation, various agreements and contracts, an international treaty, a U.S. Supreme Court 22 decree, and federal administrative actions that govern the rights to use Colorado River water within the seven Colorado River Basin states. The 1922 Colorado River Compact apportioned the waters of the Colorado River Basin between the Upper Colorado River Basin (i.e., Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico) and the Lower Basin (i.e., Nevada, Arizona, and California). The 1922 Colorado River Compact allocates 15 million AFY of Colorado River water as follows: 7.5 million AFY to the Upper Basin and 7.5 million AFY to the Lower Basin, plus up to 1 million AFY of surplus supplies. The Lower Basin's water was further apportioned among the three Lower Basin states by the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act and the 1931 Boulder Canyon Project Agreement, typically called the 1931 Seven Party Agreement, which allocates California's apportionment of Colorado River water among Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District (IID), CVWD, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. The 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California established Arizona's basic annual apportionment at 2.8 million AFY, California's at 4.4 million AFY, and Nevada's at 0.3 million AFY. Mexico is entitled to 1.5 million AFY of the Colorado River under the 1944 United States -Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande. However, this treaty did not specify a required quality for water entering Mexico. In 1973, the United States and Mexico signed Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission requiring certain water quality standards for water entering Mexico. California's Colorado River supply is protected by the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act, which provides that in years of insufficient supply on the main stem of the Colorado River, supplies to the Central Arizona Project shall be reduced to zero before California will be reduced below 4.4 million AF in any year. This assures full supplies to the Coachella Valley, except in periods of extreme drought. The Coachella Canal is a branch of the All-American Canal that brings Colorado River water into the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. Under the 1931 Seven Party Agreement, CVWD receives 330,000 AFY of Priority 3A Colorado River water diverted from the All-American Canal at the Imperial Dam. The Coachella Canal originates at Drop 1 on the All-American Canal and extends approximately 123 miles, terminating in CVWD's Lake Cahuilla. The service area for Colorado River water delivery under CVWD's contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) is defined as Improvement District No. 1 (ID -1), which encompasses 136,400 acres covering most of the East Valley and a portion of the West Valley north of Interstate 10. Under the 1931 Seven Party Agreement, CVWD has water rights to Colorado River water as part of the first 3.85 million AFY allocated to California. CVWD is in the third priority position along with IID. In 2003, CVWD, IID, and MWD successfully negotiated the 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (2003 QSA), which quantifies Colorado River allocations through 2077 and supports the transfer of water between agencies. Under the 2003 QSA, CVWD has a base entitlement of 330,000 AFY. CVWD negotiated water transfer agreements with MWD and IID that increased CVWD supplies by an additional 123,000 AFY. CVWD's net QSA supply will increase to 424,000 AFY by 2026 and remain at that level until 2047, decreasing to 421,000 AFY until 2077, when the agreement terminates. As of 2021, CVWD's available Colorado River water diversions at Imperial Dam under the QSA were 399,000 AFY. This includes the base entitlement of 330,000 AFY, the MWD/IID Transfer of 20,000 AFY, IID/CVWD First Transfer of 50,000 AFY, and IID/CVWD Second 23 Transfer of 28,000 AFY. CVWD's QSA diversions also deducts the -26,000 AFY transferred to San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) as part of the Coachella Canal Lining Project and the - 3,000 AFY transfer to Indian Present Perfected Rights. Additionally, under the 2003 QSA, MWD transferred 35,000 AFY of its State Water Project (SWP) Table A Amount to CVWD. This SWP water is exchanged for Colorado River water and can be delivered at Imperial Dam for delivery via the Coachella Canal to the eastern portion of the Indio Subbasin or at Lake Havasu for delivery via the Colorado River Aqueduct to the western portion of the Indio Subbasin at the Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility (WWR-GRF). The 2019 Second Amendment guaranteed delivery of 35,000 AFY from 2019 to 2026, for a total of 280,000 AFY of water to the WWR-GRF during that timeframe. MWD can deliver the water through CVWD's Whitewater Service Connections (for recharge at WWR-GRF) or via the Advance Delivery account. The MWD/IID Transfer originated in a 1989 agreement with MWD to receive 20,000 AF of its Colorado River supply. The 2019 Amended and Restated Agreement for Exchange and Advance Delivery of Water defined the exchange and delivery terms between MWD, CVWD, and DWA. The 2019 Second Amendment to Delivery and Exchange Agreement reduced CVWD's annual delivery of the MWD/IID Transfer to 15,000 AFY, for a total of 105,000 AF, if taken at the Whitewater Service Connections (for recharge at WWR-GRF) between 2020 and 2026. For those seven years, MWD keeps the remaining 5,000 AFY, after which CVWD's allocation increases back up to 20,000 AFY. CVWD's total allocations under the QSA, including MWD's transfer of 35,000 AFY and the MWD/IID Transfer, will increase from 424,000 AFY in 2020 to 459,000 AFY by 2026 and remain at that level for the remainder of the 75 -year term of the QSA. Table 3-3 lists total Colorado River entitlements under existing agreements. Table 3-3: CVWD Coiorado River entitlements (AFY) ��Miversion 1111 Base Entitlement 2020 1 330,000 2025.,MJM2030 330,000 F330,000 2035 do 330,000 0 - 330,000 330,000 1988 MWD/IID Approval Agreement 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 IID/CVWD First Transfer 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 IID/CVWD Second Transfer' 23,000 48,000 53,000 53,000 53,000 53,000 Coachella Canal Lining -26,000 -26,000 -26,000 -26,000 -26,000 -26,000 Indian Present Perfected Rights Transfer -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 QSA Diversions 394,000 419,000 424,000 424,000 424,000 424,000 MWD SWP Transfer' 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Total Diversions 429,000 454,000 459,000 459,000 459,000 459,000 Assumed Conveyance Losses (5%) -21,200 -22,700 -22,950 -22,950 -22,950 -22,950 MWD/IID Approval Agreement Transfer -5,000 -5,000 0 0 0 0 Source: 2022 Alternative Plan Update for the Indio Subbasin ' The Second IID/CVWD Transfer began in 2018 with 13,000 AF of water. This amount increases annually by 5,000 AFY for a total of 53,000 AFY in 2026. z The 35,000 AFY MWD/CVWD SWP Transfer may be delivered at either Imperial Dam or Whitewater River and is not subject to SWP or Colorado River reliability. 3 Accounts for -5,000 AFY reduction in MWD/IID Approval Agreement deliveries from 2020-2026 per the 2019 Amendments with MWD. 24 The Colorado River deliveries to CVWD at the Imperial Dam/Coachella Canal from 2018 through 2022 are shown in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: Colorado River Deliveries to CVWD at the Imperial Dam/Coachella Canal Imperial Dam/Coachella Canal I 338,035 I 343,971 I 350,618 I 351,904 I 330,387 Source: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Reports for Arizona, California, and Nevada. 1 The 15,000 AFY of 1988 MWD/IID Approval Agreement water was delivered at WWR-GRF from 2020 to 2022. CVWD's recharge volumes of Colorado River water from 2018 through 2022 are shown in Table 3-5. Table 3-5: Groundwater Recharge of Colorado River Water Deliveries to CVWD at the Imperial Dam/Coachella Canal Thomas E. Levy GRF 33,348 36,143 37,536 37,971 27,993 Palm Desert GRF 0 7,757 9,700 10,633 10,949 Source: 2023-2024 CVWD Annual Engineer's Reports on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 3.2.2 State Water ProieC The SWP is managed by DWR and includes 705 miles of aqueduct and conveyance facilities extending from Lake Oroville in Northern California to Lake Perris in Southern California. The SWP has contracts to deliver 4.172 million AFY to the State Water Contractors. The State Water Contractors consist of 29 public entities with long-term contracts with DWR for all, or a portion of, their water supply needs. In 1962 and 1963, DWA and CVWD, respectively, entered contracts with the State of California for a total of 61,200 AFY of SWP water. SWP water has been an important component of the region's water supply mix since CVWD and DWA began receiving and recharging SWP exchange water at the WWR-GRF. Starting in 1973, CVWD and DWA began exchanging their SWP water with MWD for Colorado River water delivered via MWD's Colorado River Aqueduct. Because CVWD and DWA do not have a physical connection to SWP conveyance facilities, MWD takes delivery of CVWD's and DWA's SWP water, and in exchange, delivers an equal amount of Colorado River water to the Whitewater Service Connections (for recharge at WWR-GRF and Mission Creek Groundwater Replenishment Facility). The exchange agreement was most recently re-established in the 2019 Amended and Restated Agreement for Exchange and Advance Delivery of Water. Each SWP contract contains a "Table A" exhibit that defines the maximum annual amount of water each contractor can receive excluding certain interruptible deliveries. DWR uses Table A amounts to allocate available SWP supplies and some SWP project costs among the contractors. Each year, DWR determines the amount of water available for delivery to SWP contractors based on hydrology, reservoir storage, the requirements of water rights licenses and permits, water quality, and environmental requirements for protected species in the Sacramento -San Joaquin 25 River Delta (Delta). The available supply is then allocated according to each SWP contractor's Table A amount. CVWD's and DWA's collective increments of Table A water are listed in Table 3-6. Original Table A SWP water allocations for CVWD and DWA were 23,100 AFY and 38,100 AFY, respectively, for a combined amount of 61,200 AFY. CVWD and DWA obtained a combined 100,000 AFY transfer from MWD under the 2003 Exchange Agreement. In 2004, CVWD purchased an additional 9,900 AFY of SWP Table A water from the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District (Tulare Lake Basin) in Kings County. In 2007, CVWD and DWA made a second purchase of Table A SWP water from Tulare Lake Basin totaling 7,000 AFY. In 2007, CVWD and DWA also completed the transfer of 16,000 AFY of Table A Amounts from the Berrenda Mesa Water District in Kern County. These latter two transfers became effective in January 2010. With these additional transfers, the total SWP Table A Amount for CVWD and DWA is 194,100 AFY. Table 3-7 shows the percent allocation of SWP Table A allocations from 2018 through 2022. Table 3-8 shows the recharge of SWP Exchange Water from 2018 through 2022. Table 3-6: State Water Project Table A Allocations Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan Table 3-7: State Water Project Table A Percent Allocations Table A Allocation 35% 1 75% I 20% I 5% I 5% Source: CA Department of Water Resources Historical Table A Allocations for Years 1996-2023 Table 3-8: CVWD and DWA Groundwater Recharge Groundwater Recharge (A 201871 2019 I. 2020 0 202! 2022 Mission Creek GRF 128,255 �R_ 15,011J Source: CVWD 2023-2024 Annual Engineer's Reports on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 1 Between 2020 and 2022, the 15,000 AFY of 1988 MWD/IID Approval Agreement water was delivered at Whitewater River GRF. 3.2.3 Other SWP Water There are other types of SWP water that can be purchased, such as individual water purchase opportunities and transfers/exchanges. These may be conveyed to CVWD and DWA as available, but no commitments exist. 26 In 2008, CVWD and DWA entered into separate agreements with DWR for the purchase and conveyance of supplemental SWP water under the Yuba River Accord Dry Year Water Purchase Program (Yuba Accord). This program provides dry year supplies through a water purchase agreement between DWR and Yuba County Water Agency, which settled long-standing operational and environmental issues over instream flow requirements for the lower Yuba River. The amount of water available for purchase varies annually and is allocated among participating SWP contractors based on their Table A amounts. CVWD and DWA may purchase up to 1.72 percent and 0.69 percent, respectively, of available Yuba Accord water, in years it is made available. Yuba Accord deliveries have varied from zero in multiple years to a total of 2,664 AFY to CVWD and DWA in 2013. Article 21 water (described in Article 21 of the SWP water contracts), "Interruptible Water," is water that State Water Contractors may receive on a short-term basis in addition to their Table A water if they request it in years when it is available. Article 21 water is used by many contractors to help meet demands in low allocation years. Article 21 water is not available every year, amounts vary when it is available, and is proportionately allocated among participating Contractors. The availability and delivery of Article 21 water cannot interfere with normal SWP operations and cannot be carried over for delivery in a subsequent year. � 3 Surface Water CVWD does not currently use or intend to use any local surface water as part of its urban potable water supply. Local runoff is captured and used for groundwater recharge. 3.3.1 River/Stream Diversion Surface water supplies come from several local rivers and streams including the Whitewater River, Snow Creek, Falls Creek, and Chino Creek, as well as a number of smaller creeks and washes. Because surface water supplies are affected by variations in annual precipitation, the annual supply is highly variable. The 50 -year hydrologic period from 1970 to 2019 had an annual average watershed runoff of 52,506 AFY, with approximately 43,300 AFY in natural infiltration. Runoff during the 25 -year period from 1995 to 2019 was below average, with 39,196 AFY in watershed runoff and 29,200 AFY in natural infiltration. CVWD does not currently use or intend to use any local surface water as part of its urban potable water supply. Local runoff is captured and used for groundwater recharge. 3.3.2 Stormwater Capture The Coachella Valley drainage area is approximately 65 percent mountainous and 35 percent typical desert valley with alluvial fan topography buffering the valley floor from the steep mountain slopes. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 30 inches or more in the San Bernardino Mountains to less than 3 inches at the Salton Sea. Three types of storms produce precipitation in the drainage area: general winter storms, general thunderstorms, and local thunderstorms. Longer duration, lower intensity rainfall events tend to have higher recharge 27 rates, but runoff from flash flooding can result from all three types of storms. Otherwise, there is little to no flow in most of the streams in the drainage area. Significant amounts of local runoff are currently captured at the Whitewater River GRF and in the debris basins and unlined channels of the western Coachella Valley. Additional stormwater will be captured when the Thousand Palms Flood Control Project is completed and when flood control is constructed in the Oasis area. However, limited data exists to estimate the amount of additional stormwater that could be captured by new facilities in the Coachella Valley. Nonetheless, large-scale stormwater capture is not expected to yield sufficient water to be worth the investment as a single purpose project. Small-scale stormwater retention systems located in areas of suitable geology to allow percolation could capture small intensity storms as well as street runoff. The potential yield of these system are not known at this time, but stormwater capture should be considered in conjunction with projects that construct stormwater and flood control facilities. 1.4 Wastewater and Recycled Water Wastewater that has been highly treated and disinfected can be reused for landscape irrigation and other purposes. Recycled wastewater has historically been used for irrigation of golf courses and municipal landscaping in the Coachella Valley since as early as the 1960s. As growth occurs in the eastern Coachella Valley, the supply of recycled water is expected to increase, creating an additional opportunity to maximize local water supply. CVWD operates five water reclamation plants (WRPs), two of them (WRP-7 and WRP-10) generate recycled water for irrigation of golf courses and large landscaped areas. WRP-4 became operational in 1986 and serves the communities from La Quinta to Mecca. WRP-4 effluent is not currently recycled; however, it will be in the future when the demand for recycled water is developed, and tertiary treatment is constructed. The other two WRPs serve communities near the Salton Sea. A sixth WRP (WRP-9) was decommissioned in July 2015. The wastewater treated by CVWD from 2018 through 2022 is shown in Table 3-9. Table 3-10 shows the recycled water produced by CVWD from 2018 through 2022. CVWD will continue to expand its recycled water program by connecting additional recycled water customers to meet the non -potable water demands in the western and eastern portions of the Coachella Valley. Table 3-9: Wastewater Treated by CVV. Wastewater (AF)_1111� 201jk 202J& 2021 -� 19,006 18,858 18,758 - 28 Table 3-10: Recycled Water Produced by CVWD 3.5 Conservation Water conservation, and the reduced groundwater production associated with water conservation, benefits the groundwater basin and is an important element of the Alternative Plans and the 2020 Regional UWMP. CVWD has utilized several programs to ensure water conservation within its service area. CVWD has implemented allocation -based conservation water pricing (i.e., tiered rates) to prevent water waste or unreasonable use of water. In addition, CVWD's indoor rebate programs are designed to assist homeowners and commercial customers reduce water usage by upgrading toilets, replacing inefficient devices, and installing new technology to improve efficiency. CVWD also has outdoor rebate programs that are designed to assist homeowners, homeowners associations, and commercial customers reduce outdoor water usage by converting turf to desert landscaping, installing smart irrigation controllers, and improving the efficiency of irrigation systems. CVWD offers seminars, workshops, and classes to help educate the public regarding the need for water conservation and the conservation programs that are available. �.6 Landscape Ordinance CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5 requires a series of reduction methods, including requirements that new developments install weather -based irrigation controllers that automatically adjust watering. Additional requirements include setbacks of spray emitters from impervious surfaces, as well as use of porous rock and gravel buffers between grass and curbs to eliminate run-off onto streets. With the exception of turf, all landscaping including groundcover and shrubbery must be irrigated with a drip system. Also, the maximum water allowance for landscaped areas through the CVWD service area has been reduced. This reduction goal requires that developers maximize the use of native and other drought -tolerant landscape materials and minimize use of more water -intensive landscape features, including turf and fountains. �3 Water Shortage contingency Plakining Based on the experiences from the 2013-2015 drought, CVWD's domestic Water Shortage Contingency Plan provides the shortage levels summarized in Table 3-11. The trigger levels used to determine the water shortage level depend on the local water situation or applicable State mandates. CVWD has a diverse mix of water supplies and benefits from a large groundwater basin providing storage. CVWD's groundwater replenishment program replenishes the basin to 29 increase groundwater storage during wet years and that supply is available for use during dry years. Table 3-11: Urban Water Shortage Contingency Plan Shortage Levels Level_ 1 Shortage Rangehortage Up to 10% .. ly Condition Normal water supplies 2 Up to 20% Slightly limited water supplies 3 Up to 30% Moderately limited water supplies 4 Up to 40% Limited water supplies 5 Up to 50% Significantly limited water supplies 6 Up to 60% Severe shortage or catastrophic incident Source: 2020 CVWD Water Shortage Contingency Plan t Public Water bysterr, (Projected Supply and Demand Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) projects that a majority of its urban potable water uses will continue to be supplied from local groundwater. In addition to groundwater, CVWD has secured imported water supplies from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River, and recycled water from water reclamation plants. These imported and recycled water supplies are used to meet CVWD's non -potable water demands and to replenish the groundwater basin. 4.1 Projected Urban Demand and Supply The following tables from the 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (Regional UWMP) provide the CVWD's projected water supplies and demands. Potable water demand projections for the CVWD service area are summarized in Table 4-1. ouic -.L. CVWD Projected Urban Retail Potable Demands Luse Type dllnL__ Single Family I 2025 60,142 Projected 2030 63,824 Water Use 2035 67,331 04g 69,816 A 71,695 Multi -Family 6,873 7,245 7,742 8,267 9,045 CII 7,060 7,244 7,438 7,709 7,985 Landscape 34,193 36,205 38,226 39,865 41,516 Other 1,457 1,563 1,670 1,755 1,840 Losses 13,736 14,501 1 15,222 15,670 16,085 Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan A summary of existing and planned urban water supply volumes by source are presented in Table 4-2. It should be noted that the supplies and demands presented in the tables below include recycled water delivered to CVWD's non -potable customers based on the DWR standardized tables and 2020 UWMP Guidebook. DWR requires the supply reliability table to include both potable and recycled water, however, CVWD's recycled water is not a potable water supply and is not delivered to CVWD's potable water customers. Instead, recycled water is used to offset the 30 groundwater pumping of private well owners (mainly for golf course and landscape irrigation) to eliminate overdraft. These projections were based on 2010 U.S. Census Data, DWR's Population Tool, the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) 2020 Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan, and seasonal occupancy data from the Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau. Table 4-2: CVWD Projected Urban Water Supplies Source: 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 4.2 Normal, Single -Dry, Multiple -Dry Year Comparison The following tables from the 2020 Regional UWMP provide CVWD's projected water supplies and demands in a normal year, single -dry year, and multiple -dry years. During normal years, CVWD will be able to meet current and future urban water demand needs projected in the 2020 Regional UWMP through groundwater pumping and recycled water as shown in Table 4-3. Table 4-3: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison Source: 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Note: CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. During single -dry years, CVWD will be able to meet current and future urban water demand needs through groundwater pumping and recycled water as shown in Table 4-4. Water supplies during the single -dry year are 100 percent reliable. CVWD's groundwater replenishment program replenishes the basin to increase groundwater storage during wet years and that supply is available for use during dry years. Thus, the supply and demand comparison for the single -dry year is the same as the normal year. 31 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Source: 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Note: CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. During single -dry years, CVWD will be able to meet current and future urban water demand needs through groundwater pumping and recycled water as shown in Table 4-4. Water supplies during the single -dry year are 100 percent reliable. CVWD's groundwater replenishment program replenishes the basin to increase groundwater storage during wet years and that supply is available for use during dry years. Thus, the supply and demand comparison for the single -dry year is the same as the normal year. 31 Table 4-4: Single -Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison Source: 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Note: CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. During multiple -dry years, CVWD will be able to meet current and future urban water demand needs through groundwater pumping and recycled water as shown in Table 4-5. Similar to the single -dry year, the multiple -dry year water supply reliability is 100 percent. Thus, the supply and demand comparison for the multiple -dry years is the same as the normal year. CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. 32 TARIF ME W l IEMW 9=7 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 . Source: 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Note: CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. During multiple -dry years, CVWD will be able to meet current and future urban water demand needs through groundwater pumping and recycled water as shown in Table 4-5. Similar to the single -dry year, the multiple -dry year water supply reliability is 100 percent. Thus, the supply and demand comparison for the multiple -dry years is the same as the normal year. CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. 32 Table 4-5: Multiple -Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison Source: 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Note: CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. CVWD's total current urban water demand was 109,607 acre-feet (AF) for 2022, including 100,066 AF of groundwater and 9,541 AF of recycled water. 33 A 2025 20300 2035 040 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 First Year Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Second Year Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Third Year Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Fourth Year Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Supply Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Groundwater 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 Fifth Year Demand Totals (AFY) 137,061 144,982 152,729 158,981 164,966 Potable Water Demand 123,461 130,582 137,629 143,081 148,166 Recycled Water Demand 13,600 14,400 15,100 15,900 16,800 I AL Source: 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Note: CVWD and the other Regional UWMP agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single -dry year, or five -dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates shown here. CVWD's total current urban water demand was 109,607 acre-feet (AF) for 2022, including 100,066 AF of groundwater and 9,541 AF of recycled water. 33 Project Descriptior? The Coral Mountain Project (Project) is situated in the easterly portion of the Coachella Valley within the corporate limits of the City of La Quinta, Riverside County as shown in Figure 5-1: Project Regional Location Map. The Project is surrounded on the north and west by developed residential land within the City of La Quinta's jurisdiction. Vacant land, including Coral Mountain, lies east of the Project, and scattered residential and vacant land lies south of the Project. The Project and the surrounding properties all are situated within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of La Quinta. The Project is bounded by Madison Street on the west, Avenue 58 on the north, and Avenue 60 to the south as shown in Figure 5-2: Project Vicinity Map. The Project is located in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. The Project proposes to develop approximately 387 acres of vacant land to include three planning areas: Planning Area III (PA -III) Residential, Planning Area V (PA -V) Neighborhood Commercial, and Planning Area VI (PA -VI) Golf/Open Space. PA -III consists of 191.8 acres of land and will allow the construction of up to 750 single family attached and detached dwellings and affiliated amenities. In addition to residential acreage, PA III also includes a 5.9 -acre sports club, a 4 -acre golf club, a 3 -acre active amenity park, two restaurants located inside the sports club and golf club, a 12 -acre lake and approximately 2 acres of golf maintenance area. PA -V consists of 7.7 acres of land that will include 60,000 square feet of publicly accessible neighborhood commercial building space. PA -VI consists of approximately 184.9 acres of land and will be developed into a championship length 18 -hole golf course and ancillary facilities such as a golf academy, practice range, chipping, putting facilities, and irrigation lakes as shown in Figure 5-3: Project Site Plan and Table 5-1: Project Land Use Summary. 34 ;.hN, - 22 Figure 5-1: Project Regional Location Map ODSEA7 hOT �A7NFLRA PAS✓, CITY SLPF_f 46s ` r !?ANCH3 MIRAGE PAI M L'ESERT f WEr LL Uru :4'ELL S GOACNE[.LA �A Q:ANTA tL! .1 MSA CONSULTING, iNC. ` REGIONAL LOCATION MAP i- tiIVII.,N[:INkcti'v4 a � � auwvkntic u fl r CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT Mi WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT 35 Figure 5-2: Project Vicinity Map 36 Rcsid[niial Land Arca : ± 141,3 Acres Figure 5-3: Project Site Plan WANAVAMEN—VE-1 SOURCES: VITA, DMI( GOLF DESIGN MSACONSULTING, INC. 01 ANNINC. , �CIVII F X[ INS FPINC 7 IAN0 SUGVFYINC I JF Feet 37 SITE PLAN CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Table 5-1: Project Land Use Summary Planning Area Specific Plan/Land Use Designation i 11(EDUs/Acre) Single Family Residential Land Area (Acres) Target Density Estimated Dwelling Units & (EDUs) Non - Residential Building Area ii (ft2) Active A - Park1 1 1 1 1 Golf Maintenance1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 111 Recreational 1 11 1 1 NeighborhoodCommercial1 1 1 .1 111 •lf Course Lake1 1 1 1 1 Publicof 1 1 1 1 - 106,100 *Restaurant acreage is 0.0 due to proposed restaurants being included within either the sports club or golf club. Project Water Demands The Coral Mountain Project (Project) proposes to develop 387 acres of land and convert it into 164.9 acres of single-family residential land use, 5.9 acres for a sports club, 4 acres for a golf club, 3 acres for an active amenity park, 12 -acre lake, 2 acres for golf maintenance, and two restaurants located inside the sports club and golf club, and convert 181.9 acres into a golf course area and 7.7 acres into a neighborhood commercial land area. 6.1 Projected Inuuur Residential Water uemana The projected indoor residential unit usage for this Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) is based on indoor water use performance standards as provided in the California Water Code (CWC) for residential water demand Water Code Section 10910 approved November 10, 2009, codified in CWC section 10608.20 (b)(2)(A). The projected indoor residential water demand for the Project totals 108.12 acre-feet per year (AFY) as shown in Table 6-1. SB 606 and AB 1668 established guidelines for efficient water use and a framework for the implementation and oversight of the new standards. Based on results of the Indoor Residential Water Use Study, DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board jointly recommended that the indoor residential standard remain at 55 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) through 2024 and decline to 47 gpcd in 2025 and to 42 gpcd in 2030. W Table 6-1: Projected Indoor Residential Water Demand 1 CA Department of Finance Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2023 for the City of La Quinta Z CA Indoor Water Use Performance Standard 6.2 Projected Indoor Commercial and Industrial Water Demand The projected indoor commercial and industrial unit usage for this WSA are based on the American Water Works Association Research Foundations (AWWARF's) Commercial and Industrial End Uses of Water. The projected indoor commercial and industrial water demand for the Project totals 15.81 AFY as shown in Table 6-2 below. Table 6-2: Projected Indoor Commercial and Industrial Water Demand Planning Area Maximum ndoor Area Number Interior Water Water Water Demand Demand Demand 2 (ft) of Rooms Floor Spac1, per Unit Factor' (gpd) (AFY) Restaurants Golf Maintenance Neighborhood Commercial 106,100 14,116.44 15.81 1 AWWARF Commercial and Industrial End Uses of Water, 2000. 6.3 Projected Outdoor Irrigation Water Demand The projected outdoor irrigation water usage is based on the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) equation from Appendix D of Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.5, which meets the water conservation goals of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). The projected outdoor irrigation water demand for the Project is 339.89 AFY as shown in Table 6-3 below. 39 Table 6-3: Projected Outdoor Irrigation Water Demand 2 Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF) from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D 3 Conversion Factor from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D 6.4 Projected Outdoor Water Features Demand The projected outdoor irrigation water usage for the golf course and recreational lake is based on the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) equation from Appendix D of Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.5. The projected outdoor water features demand for the Project is 753.19 AFY, as shown in Table 6-4 below. Table 6-4: Projected Outdoor Recreational Water Demand Landscaped Area ETo nverSion Water Water Planning Area (ft2) in/yr) ETAF 2 LFactor Demand pd Demandq Single Family 5,387,283.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 264,454.79 296.23 Sports Club 205,603.20 64.22 0.45 0.62 10,092.80 11.31 Golf Club 156,816.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 7,697.90 8.62 Active 104,544.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 5,131.93 5.75 Amenity Park 130,680.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 6,414.91 7.19 Golf 52,272.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 2,565.97 2.87 Maintenance 522,720.00 64.22 1.1 0.62 62,723.59 70.26 Neighborhood 201,247.20 64.22 0.45 0.62 9,878.97 11.07 Commercial 672,401.67 753.19 Public Right of 73,616.40 64.22 0.45 0.62 3,613.73 4.05 Way Total :0 303,436.07 339.89 i Reference Evaootransoiration (ETo) for ETo Zone 3 from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5. Aooendix C 2 Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF) from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D 3 Conversion Factor from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D 6.4 Projected Outdoor Water Features Demand The projected outdoor irrigation water usage for the golf course and recreational lake is based on the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) equation from Appendix D of Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.5. The projected outdoor water features demand for the Project is 753.19 AFY, as shown in Table 6-4 below. Table 6-4: Projected Outdoor Recreational Water Demand 2 Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF) from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D of 1.0 for special areas, 1.1 for a stationary body of water, and 1.2 for a moving body of water 3 Conversion Factor from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D 40 14, Conversion Water Water Planning Area Water. Featur Area (ft2) ETo ) 1 in/yr 2 ETAF Factor 3 Demand Demand Golf Course - 3,571,920.00 64.22 1.0 1/ft2) 0.62 p, 389,646.56 436.46 Irrigated Turf Golf Course - 4,351,644.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 213,616.60 239.28 Other Areas Golf Course 130,680.00 64.22 0.45 0.62 6,414.91 7.19 Lake Recreational 522,720.00 64.22 1.1 0.62 62,723.59 70.26 Lake Total 672,401.67 753.19 i Reference Evanotransniration (ETo) for ETo Zone 3 from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5. Annendix C 2 Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF) from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D of 1.0 for special areas, 1.1 for a stationary body of water, and 1.2 for a moving body of water 3 Conversion Factor from CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, Appendix D 40 6.5 Projected Total Water Demand The total projected water demand for the Project is 1,217.01 AFY, or 3.14 acre-feet per acre, as shown in Table 6-5 below. Table 6-5: Projected Total Water Demand *Restaurant acreage is 0.0 due to proposed restaurants being located within either the sports club or golf club. 6.6 Projected Water Sources Project domestic water supplies and associated landscape irrigation supplies will be provided from groundwater from the Indio Subbasin in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin via Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) potable water distribution system. This source will serve all indoor and private landscape uses. Canal water and/or well water will serve the golf course and the community common area and streetscape landscape if available. 41 Indoor Land Indoor Commercial Outdoor Outdoor Total Planning Area Area Residential Demand and Industrial Irrigation Demand Recreational Demand Water Demand (Acres (AFY) Demand (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) NMW6(AFYM)J=N1 1 1 11 �1 Restaurants 1 11 1 11 1 1 11 1 11 Golf 11 1 11 ® 1 11 Maintenance Neighborhood Commercial Golf Course IrrigateclTurf Golf •• •1 1 11 1 11 1 11 -Course • ._ Recreational 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 1 Lake Public Right • .1 111 111 1 111 1 Way Golf Course11 1 11 1 11 1 11 Lake Active11 1 11 off off Amenity��M 87.0 108.1 *Restaurant acreage is 0.0 due to proposed restaurants being located within either the sports club or golf club. 6.6 Projected Water Sources Project domestic water supplies and associated landscape irrigation supplies will be provided from groundwater from the Indio Subbasin in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin via Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD's) potable water distribution system. This source will serve all indoor and private landscape uses. Canal water and/or well water will serve the golf course and the community common area and streetscape landscape if available. 41 Table 6-6: Projected Water Sources 6.7 Conservation Measures The landscape guidelines for the Coral Mountain Project emphasize non-invasive drought tolerant plant materials that are climate -appropriate, water efficient, and sustainable. The plant palette throughout the Specific Pan area shall utilize low maintenance and low water. The landscaping and irrigation plans and system shall comply with all CVWD and County ordinances relating to water efficiency and the Project shall use automated irrigation systems with irrigation timers, and two drip or bubbler heads per tree to provide efficient deep -root irrigation. 6.7.1 Desert Landscaping & Drought Tolerant Plants The need for progressive water conservation and control of landscape maintenance costs has prompted the greater use of native and non-native drought -tolerant planting materials within the Project. The Coachella Valley and CVWD have been a leader in the promotion of these desert landscape materials and design themes, most notably in CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.4. As a result, thoughtful and conservative management and use of water resources have guided development of this Project landscape plan. 42 Incloor *utaoor Indoor Outdoor Planning Area Area Residential Commercial Irrigation Recreational (Acres) 11 Demand and industrial Demand Water Demand is CVWD Demand 1 Single Family Residential 164.90 CVWD Domestic Domestic Water System Water System Sports Club 5.90 CVWD Domestic Canal Water and/or Well Golf Club 4.00 Golf 2.00 Maintenance Water System Water Neighborhood 7.70 Commercial Restaurants 0.00 Active Amenity 3.00 Park Canal Water and/or Well Public Right of 2.60 Way Water Golf Course 181.90 Golf Course 3.00 Canal Water Lake and/or Well Recreational 12.00 Water Lake 6.7 Conservation Measures The landscape guidelines for the Coral Mountain Project emphasize non-invasive drought tolerant plant materials that are climate -appropriate, water efficient, and sustainable. The plant palette throughout the Specific Pan area shall utilize low maintenance and low water. The landscaping and irrigation plans and system shall comply with all CVWD and County ordinances relating to water efficiency and the Project shall use automated irrigation systems with irrigation timers, and two drip or bubbler heads per tree to provide efficient deep -root irrigation. 6.7.1 Desert Landscaping & Drought Tolerant Plants The need for progressive water conservation and control of landscape maintenance costs has prompted the greater use of native and non-native drought -tolerant planting materials within the Project. The Coachella Valley and CVWD have been a leader in the promotion of these desert landscape materials and design themes, most notably in CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.4. As a result, thoughtful and conservative management and use of water resources have guided development of this Project landscape plan. 42 6.7.2 Project Specific Water Conservation MeasureF A broad range of design components and mitigation measures will be implemented to address the Project's potential impacts on water resources. Project developers will be required to implement the following measures in order to assure the most efficient use of water resources and to meet and maintain the 2010 CVWMP Update goals throughout the life of the Project: • To the greatest extent practicable, native plant materials and other drought -tolerant plants shall be used in all non -turf areas of Project landscaping. Large expanses of lawn and other water -intensive landscaped areas shall be kept to the minimum necessary and consistent with the functional and aesthetic needs of the Project, while providing soil stability to resist erosion. • The installation and maintenance of efficient on-site irrigation systems will minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize effective watering of plant roots. Drip irrigation and moisture detectors will be used to the greatest extent practicable to increase irrigation efficiency. • The use of low -flush toilets and water -conserving showerheads and faucets shall be required in conformance with Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code, Title 20, California Code of Regulations Section 1601(b), and applicable sections of Title 24 of the State Code. 6.7.3 Golf Course Irrigation System Conservation The irrigation system has been planned to meet the standards of a modern golf course irrigation system and enable precise water management through multiple measures as listed: • The irrigation system will feature individual irrigation head control, allowing precise control over each sprinkler. • A central control computer system will be implemented to manage all sprinkler heads and valves efficiently. • An onsite weather station will be integrated into the system, enabling the irrigation program to provide the exact amount of water needed based on real-time weather conditions. • During challenging water restriction episodes, the system will have the capability to exclusively water greens and trees if required. • Modern control monitoring through internet-based software will be incorporated into the pumping facilities for efficient monitoring and control. • The design of the irrigation system will adhere to the stringent criteria identified by CVW D. 43 7 Availability of Sufficient Supplies 7.1 Water Supply Assessment Based on the analysis in this Water Supply Assessment (WSA), the projected total water demand for the Coral Mountain Project (Project) will be 1,217.01 acre-feet per year (AFY), or 3.14 acre- feet per acre. CVWD's long-term water management planning ensures that adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water needs within its service area. CVWD's current urban water demand was 100,066 acre-feet (AF) for 2022, and the projected urban water demand by 2045 is 148,166 AFY. This Project's water demand of 1,217.01 AFY accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of the total planned increase in demand of 48,100 AFY by 2045. This WSA provides an assessment of the availability of sufficient water supplies during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years over a 20 -year projection to meet the projected demands of the Project, in addition to existing and planned future water demands of CVWD, as required by Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 1262. This WSA also includes identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, and agreements relevant to the identified water supply for the Project and quantities of water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, contracts, and agreements. This WSA has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of SB 610 and SB 1262 by MSA Consulting in consultation with CVWD and the City. This WSA does not relieve the Project from complying with all applicable state, county, city, and local ordinances or regulations including the CVWD Landscape Ordinance, and indoor water use performance standards provided in the California Water Code now or in the future. Consistent with the provisions of SB 610, neither this WSA nor its approval shall be construed to create a right or entitlement to water service or any specific level of water service, and shall not impose, expand, or limit any duty concerning the obligation of CVWD to provide certain service to its existing customers or to any future potential customers. This WSA does not constitute an agreement to provide water service to the Project, and does not entitle the Project, Project applicant, or any other person or entity to any right, priority, or allocation in any supply, capacity, or facility. To receive water service, the Project will be subject to an agreement with CVWD, together with any and all applicable fees, charges, plans and specifications, conditions, and any and all other applicable CVWD requirements in place and as amended from time to time. Nor does anything in this WSA prevent or otherwise interfere with CVWD's discretionary authority to declare a water shortage emergency in accordance with the Water Code. This WSA will be reviewed every five years, or in the event that the water planning assumptions have changed, until the Project begins construction on all planning areas to ensure it remains accurate and no significant changes to either the Project or available water supply has occurred. The Project applicant shall notify CVWD when construction begins on all planning areas. M 7.2 Requirement for Written Verification of Water Supply Availability Government Code §66473.7 requires that a Written Verification of Water Supply (WV) be prepared in connection with the approval of a development agreement or tentative map that includes a subdivision. A subdivision is defined as a proposed residential development of more than 500 units, except that for a water agency with fewer than 5,000 service connections, a subdivision includes a residential development project that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the agency's existing service connections. This WSA is not a WV. If the City determines that the Project or any planning area meets the definition of a subdivision and therefore requires preparation of a WV, the City must request a WV prepared by CVWD in compliance with the requirements of SB 221. This WSA may be used to support the WV. Depending on circumstances including but not limited to new water efficiency regulations or changes in water supply availability, CVWD may recommend preparation of an updated supply and demand assessment to support the WV. 45 8 References American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water, 2000 California Department of Water Resources, Final State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2019, August 2020 California Department of Water Resources, Results of the Indoor Residential Water Use Study, November 2021 California Department of Water Resources, State Water Project Historical Table A Allocations, Water Years 1996-2023, April 2023 Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella Water Authority, Desert Water Agency, Indio Water Authority, Mission Springs Water District, Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company, 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Systems Consulting, Inc., June 2021 Coachella Valley Water District, 2023-2024 Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, April 2023 Coachella Valley Water District, Landscape Ordinance 1302.5, July 2020 Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella Water Authority, Desert Water Agency, and Indio Water Authority, Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022, Todd Groundwater Inc., March 2023 Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella Water Authority, Desert Water Agency, and Indio Water Authority, 2022 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update/Alternative Plan Update, Todd Groundwater Inc., December 2021 Coachella Valley Water District, Desert Water Agency, and Mission Springs Water District, Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2021-2022, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Inc., February 2023 United States Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Reports for Arizona, California, and Nevada