Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SP 1986-007 Washington Street Corridor (1986 Sep. ) - Amendment 1
WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN MARCH 1986 AS AMENDED AMENDMENT •1 APPROVED 8/16/86 •2 1/19/88 ♦3 3/21/88 PREPARED ■Y a' -m -w, CONSULTANTS, INC. RANCHO MIRAGE PREPARED FOR TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CITY OF LA QUINTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-14 (AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDING RESOLUTIONS) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................1 Background............................................1 Findings..............................................1 Conclusions...........................................3 Recommendations.......................................4 INTRODUCTION..............................................5 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES.......................................5 EXISTING CORRIDOR CONDITIONS ..............................7 Existing Land Uses....................................7 Existing Roadway Characteristics .....................10 Existing Utility Infrastructure ......................12 Existing Traffic Characteristics .....................15 FUTURE CORRIDOR CONDITIONS...............................23 Land Uses............................................23 Ultimate Roadway.....................................23 Future Traffic Volumes...............................23 CORRIDOR CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES...............28 I-10 Freeway to Fred Waring Drive....................28 Fred Waring Drive to Highway 111 .....................29 Highway 111 to Eisenhower Drive......................32 Eisenhower Drive to 52nd Avenue......................32 UTILITY AND STREETSCAPE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES ............ 37 Utility Alternatives.................................37 Streetscape Alternatives .............................38 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ..........................40 IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING ALTERNATIVES ......................45 LIST OF TABLES Table Page I Recent and Proposed Developments .................. 10 II improved Roadway Sections .........................12 IIIMidblock Location Data ............................20 IV Intersection Location Data.................9......20 V Intersection Accident Priority Listing ............ 21 VI Midblock Accident Priority Listing................22 VII Transit Stop Route Locations and Times ............. 22 VIII Recommended Mitigation Measures and Costs......... 41 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Paqe 1 Vicinity Map.......................................6 2 Zoning Designations................................8 3 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes ............ 16 4 Highway 111/Washington Street Peak Hour LOS ....... 18 5 High Accident Locations ...........................19 6 Typical Cross-sections ............ ...............24 7 Washington Street Parkway Alternatives ............ 25 8 Washington Street Parkway Alternatives ............ 26 9 Ultimate Projected Average Daily Traffic .......... 27 10 Washington Street/Highway 111 Intersection ........ 31 11 Washington Street Realignment south of Highway .... 33 12 Washington Street Realignment Typical Section ..... 34 13 Frontage Road Intersection ........................44 14 Annual Infrastructure Funds.......................46 RESOLUTION NO. 86-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007 (WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR PLAN) FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of Specific Plan No. 86-007 pursuant to Government Code Section 65500 et seq. of the California Planning and Zoning Law and has transmitted the same to the City Council in compliance with Section 65502 of said law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held at least one public hearing on Specific Plan No. 86-007, as required by Section 65503 of the California Planning and Zoning Law; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan, as amended, is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 1 plan; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan will provide necessary guidelines to help ensure the orderly and timely completion of improvements to Washington Street, including improvements to the roadway, parkways and public utilities; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the Specific Plan is necessary to provide for adequate capacity and levels of service to accomodate anticipated future traffic levels on Washington Street; and WHEREAS, the realignment of portions of Washington Street will improve traffic safety for the City as a whole; and WHEREAS, the project will provide for the orderly expansion and extension of utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety; and WHEREAS, although the implementation of the Specific Plan could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the incorpora- tion of mitigation mesures into the plan, in accordance with the La Quinta General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, will mitigate these impacts to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, cumulative and unavoidable impacts were previously addressed within the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted with the La Quinta General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Quinta does hereby adopt Specific Plan No. 86-007, "Washington Street Corridor Study", as amended, a copy of which is attached herezc and incorporated herein as though set forth at length. (""111 RESOLUTION NO. 86-14 APPROVED and ADOPTED this 4th day of March 1986, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Cox, Wolff and Mayor Pena. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. {f�, • d it l r : !r f � � �.� � � MAYOR----�--r-�.- • � T ATTEST: - Y I APPROVE` AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ZZ CITY ATTORNEY I 'AGER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan was commission- ed by the City of La Quints and independently conducted by the municipal planning, engineering, and management firm of BSI Consultants, Inc., Rancho Mirage, California. The pur- pose of the Plan is to assess short range and long range needs and deficiencies along Washington Street and to make specific recommendations to implement the City General Plan. To ensure implementation of the General Plan through indivi- dual development projects along Washington Street, several issues of concern were identified and addressed in this Spe- cific Plan. Issues included existing and future land uses; roadway alignment and design standards; traffic control strategies; landscaping and other enhancements; and the in- frastructure necessary to support the type and magnitude of development envisioned along the corridor. Generalized con- sideration is given to funding implementation of recommended improvement projects. FINDINGS Washington Street serves as a "gateway' into the central core of the City of La Quinta. The limits of Washington Street, as a transportation corridor, extend approximately six miles from the I-10 Freeway on the north to 52nd Avenue on the south, and is inclusive of key intersections with Country Club Drive, Fred Waring Drive, Miles Avenue, Highway 111, 48th Avenue (future), Eisenhower Drive, 50th Avenue, Calle Tampico, and 52nd Avenue (future realigned). The por- tion of Washington Street north of Fred Waring Drive is within the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside, as is the west side of Washington Street between Fred Waring Drive and the Whitewater Flood Control Channel. The east side of Washington Street between Fred Waring Drive and the White- water Flood Control Channel is within the jurisdiction of the City of La Quinta. South of Highway 111, the entire roadway is within the jurisdiction of the City of La Quinta. The paved portion of Washington Street is presently a two- lane roadway for the most part, with limited half sections paved to the previous County of Riverside designed ultimate 110 foot cross-section. County designated ultimate sections of Washington Street exist along the west side north of Fred Waring Drive, on the east and west sides south of Highway 111, and on the east and west sides north of Eisenhower Drive. As part of this Specific Plan preparation, funding was obtained for spot widening of Washington Street at the intersection with 50th Avenue. -1- Land uses adjacent to Washington Street within the City of La Quints include commercial retail at Highway 111, limited single family residential frontage south of Highway 111, and major planned residential developments at Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue. The remaining parcels of land along Wash- ington Street are presently undeveloped, although a number of large residential tracts have been approved by the City. The current City of La Quinta ultimate standards by which Washington Street is to be constructed call for a 96 -foot curb -to -curb roadway within a 120 -foot right-of-way. Additional right-of-way to the east is needed north of Avenue 48 to Singing Palms Drive in order to accommodate the frontage road. Specific detailing can be found elsewhere within this text. A typical section based on current standards would include an 18 -foot wide median; lanes of 12, 13, and the 14 -foot widths, and 12 -foot parkways on both sides of the street. The current standards permit the addition of a third travel lane in each direction via elimination of the parking/emergency lanes, if added roadway capacity becomes necessary. This Transportation Systems Management (TSM) technique is commonly applied in urban areas. In previous studies of potential traffic and circulation impacts, various segments of Washington Street were fore- casted to carry extremely high volumes of traffic in the future. Estimates range from a low of 32,000 south of 50th Avenue to over 55,000 vehicles per day south of the I-10 Freeway. It was determined that if these projected traffic increases were to occur, Washington street would require a minimum six lanes of travel and intensive Transportation System Management (TSM) applications to provide acceptable levels of service. For example, the numerous and closely spaced driveways to existing single family residential developments south of Highway 111 and south of Eisenhower Drive are adversely impacted by ever increasing traffic on Washington Street, and may best benefit by TSM applications of driveway/inter- section consolidations via local access road provision. The Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection is projected to be most severely and immediately impacted by increases in traffic. Utility companies contacted during the course of this study indicated their intentions to continue to upgrade and expand their systems along Washington Street to meet the future needs of development within the City. City funded construction of all recommended projects along the Washington Street Corridor - exclusive of right--of-way acquisition costs - are estimated to require the 100 percent earmarking of gas tax and public utility funds, and the recently adapted infrastructure fees over an 11 year period. The principal federal contribution for potential application in the Washington Street Corridor is currently the Federal Aide Secondary (FAS) Program. FAS funds are controlled by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, which con- ducts a competitive evaluation of projects every January. -2- Caltrans also programs FAS funds for use on the State Highway system. After the 1990 census, Washington Street will be designated Federal Aid Urban (FAU), thereby channel- ing funds to the City. V1111111172111M Based on the above findings, the following conclusions were reached: * The design standard for Washington Street must provide for three lanes of travel in each direction and dual -left turn lanes at the Fred Waring Drive, Country Club Drive, and Highway 111 intersections. * Current design standards for Washington Street and key cross -street intersection approaches need to be modified to include variably increased rights of way and geomet- ries at major intersections. * A higher design standard is necessary for the intersec- tion of Washington Street and Highway 111 in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. * Washington Street should be realigned to the east south of Highway 111 in order to eliminate conflicts with the existing single family residential frontage between Sing- ing Palms Drive and Highland Palms Drive. * The existing bridge structures over the Whitewater Channel and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel need to be widened in order to provide additional lanes of travel (consistent with ultimate six lane configuration) median separation, and pedestrian/bikeway facilities. * The horizontal curve in Washington Street, south of Eisenhower Drive, should be maintained in order to aid in reducing traffic speed and avoid costly utility relocations which are unnecessary for development of the corridor. * A number of minor cross streets, particularly south of Eisenhower Drive, serving existing residential develop- ment off Washington Street are not necessary for access, and should be closed via cul-de-sac construction. * Utility companies are aware of the future needs of the City of La Quinta, and are prepared to provide necessary services subsequent to infrastructure upgrades by others. * Guidelines are needed to provide public enhancements to the Washington Street corridor. These enhancements include landscaping, street furniture, bus shelters, informational signage, median street lights, and other features. MIS I it 1 M1, 1 Based on the above conclusions the following recommendations are made: * Adopt and apply new roadway alignment standards for Washington Street as specified in this report. Establish a new alignment for Washington Street to provide a 32 -foot local .access road on the west side within a 202 -foot right-of-way, as indicated in this report, generally between Avenue 48 and Singing Palms Drive. * Establish a new centerline alignment for Washington Street between Eisenhower Drive and the La Quinta Evacua- tion Channel bridge, as documented in this Plan. * Require new development to comply with the new standards, alignments, and right-of-way specified in this report. * Cul-de-sac unnecessary minor cross streets along Washing- ton Street in order to increase roadway capacity and preserve neighborhood integrity. * Inform the residents of La Quinta, Caltrans, the River- side County Transportation Commission, the County of Riverside and the cities of Indian Wells and Palm Desert of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report, and request their cooperation in implementation of the 18 improvements in this Plan (see Table VIII, Page 41). -4- WASHINGTON STREET SPECIFIC PLAN 10, 118,1030 l to The Washington Street Specific Plan is intended to be a con- ceptual plan which establishes the basic objectives and general design parameters for the future improvement of the corridor area. Washington Street is a regionally significant major arterial which provides north -south connections between Interstate 10 (I-10), State Highway 111, and the established development core of the City of La Quinta. A Vicinity Map of the Washington Street corridor is illustrated in Figure 1. The City has recognized that as development occurs - both along the approximately six mile corridor and throughout the region - the circulation and other infrastructure (e.g., utilities, cable television) impacts on Washington Street will be significant. Per the directive of the City, build out of Washington Street must include adequate impact mitigations. In response to recognized needs and deficiencies along Washington Street, the City of La Quinta prescribed the examination of potential improvements to mitigate problem areas; the development of design concepts, funding and implementation strategies to ensure the future enhancement of the Washington Street Corridor. Important issues pertaining to the Washington Street Corri- dor include existing and proposed land uses; associated traffic volumes and roadway capacity requirements to provide adequate levels of service; Washington Street access for adjacent development; traffic safety considerations; corridor aesthetics; and implementation funding and phasing. The purpose of this Specific Plan is to implement the Gener- al Plan through the definition of specific developer dedication requirements, public improvement projects, design concepts, and administrative ordinances to guide development of the functional and physical character of Washington Street. GOAL AND 'OHJECTI The goal of the City of La Quinta General Plan Infrastruc- ture Element is "To program, construct, and maintain a comprehensive system of streets, utilities, and other facil- ities necessary for optimum functioning of the City." To attain the subject goal, specific objectives of this Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan were identified as follows: -5- WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR — •oma w Figure 1 VICINITY MAP -6- NO SCALE 1. Define traffic flow and traffic safety improvement projects along the Washington Street corridor to enhance existing circulation and provide adequate levels of service for ultimate development; 2. Determine ultimate utility infrastructure and aes- thetic enhancement needs, and associated Washington Street corridor right-of-way requirements; 3. Program implementation of recommended projects, with funding sources and phasing priority specified. EX $TLNGCQRR�}�R �QN ITI Washington Street corridor below in terms of land utility infrastructure, and EXISTING LAND Ma existing conditions are described uses, roadway characteristics, traffic characteristics. Zoning designations for the Washington Street Corridor as specified by the City of La Quinta General Plan are illustrated in Figure 2. The existing and proposed residen- tial and commercial developments located along Washington Street will cumulatively impact traffic volumes, accident rates, roadway capacity, and levels of service. The follow- ing discussion of existing developments gives consideration to access opportunities and deficiencies. Between the I-10 interchange and Fred Waring Drive, in unin- corporated Riverside County, Washington Street corridor land uses are comprised of sprawled residential and commercial developments. Property in the southeast corner of the Wash- ington Street/Fred Waring Drive intersection is zoned commercial in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The remainder of this corridor section is zoned residential. Several parcels along the Washington Street Corridor between Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 are currently under construction. The southwest parcel at the intersection will be developed into the "Desert Classic Resort Hotel" (County of Riverside), which will include a 600 -room hotel and 260 residences on 350 acres. The northwest corner property is under construction as the "Desert Breezes" (County of River- side), with 274 dwelling units on 72 acres. "Reflections" is also under construction on the southeast corner of the intersection, and includes 354 dwelling units on 60 acres. The La Quinta Country Center commercial development was proposed for the northeast corner of the Highway 111 intersection, and has been halted by the City. The Plaza La Quinta is a commercial shopping center located at the southwest corner of Highway ill and Washington Street. It has a one-way stop controlled driveway access onto Washington Street located 900 foot south of the signalized Highway 111 intersection (i.e., 900 feet from centerline to centerline of the respective intersections). -7- 'ni-n ------------- 0. i, f Co i t—rx-��v,--A �i y MATCH UNE ABOVE RIGHT -a- Ali MATCH LWE BELOW LEFT Ll Simon Motors, an automobile dealership, is located on Highway 111 with side access from Washington Street via Simon Drive. Simon Drive, also referenced as Oreste Drive, aligns with Singing Palms Drive to the west and is located approximately 1,200 foot south of the Washington Street/ State Highway 111 traffic signal. Although not yet developed, the City has approved the Isla Mediterranea development to be located east of Washington Street and north of the 48th Street extension. The 152 acre site is planned for 894 dwelling units. Access driveways are planned on Adams Street, 48th Avenue, and Washington Street. The Washington Street access, located 900 foot north of 48th Street, is designed for separate inbound and outbound lanes with a 100 foot wide buffer in between. The subject design will effectively eliminate outbound left turn movements from this one-way stop controlled location (and divert them to the ultimate 48th Street signal controlled intersection with Washington Street), thereby preserving roadway capacity. A recent development approval of greater magnitude is 'The Grove", a 1,580 residential unit complex on 700 acres to be located southeast of the proposed extension of 48th Avenue. The only Washington Street access is planned to align with the existing Eisenhower Drive signal controlled intersec- tion. Located approximately 1,600 foot south of 48th Avenue, the subject access is more than sufficiently spaced for opt- imal traffic signal interconnection along Washington Street. A single family residential development, located sou_t of Plaza La Quinta on the west side of Washington Street be- tween singing Palms Drive and Highland Palms Drive, was subdivided prior to City of La Quinta incorporation. It includes 17 existing dwellings which access directly via Washington Street. This results in numerous traffic conflict points and a high traffic accident potential. It is bordered to the north and west by approximately 20 developable vacant acres which are zoned for low-density and medium density residential. Approximately 80 units are envisioned for build out of this area. The property between Highland Palms Drive and Eisenhower Drive is primarily vacant, with the exception of a newly constructed church, Saint Francis of Assissi (located dir- ectly south of the above -referenced residential tract), and the 100 acre "Laguna de la Paz" residential tract north of Eisenhower Drive. At completion, "Laguna de la Paz" will include 356 dwellings and will access via Eisenhower Drive. The west side of the corridor section between Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue is developed as residential with golf course recreational use. The Washington Street Villas are single family residences between Eisenhower Drive and Av- enida Montero. Tract No. 3455, which is accessed by Avenida Montero, continues to 50th Avenue -on the west side. -9- The east side of the section between Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue is largely vacant, with the exception of three unimproved cross -streets which access several adjacent residential lots. The "Duna La Quinta" residential/golf course development is under construction on the west side of Washington Street between 50th Avenue and Avenida Ultimo. Between Avenida Ultimo and 52nd Avenue, existing development is limited to a few single family residential lots. Table I lists the recent and proposed developments along the Washington Street corridor, their locations and sizes. Table I - Recent and Proposed Washington Street Developments Development Location Slze Reflections SE Corner Fred Waring Dr. 354 Du, 60 Ac Desert Breezes NE Corner Fred Waring Dr. 274 Du, 72 Ac Desert Classic Resort Hotel SW Corner Fred Waring Dr. 600 Rms.; 260 Du; 350 Ac Isla Madlterranea East Side Washington St. north of 48th Avenue 894 Du, 150 Ac Laguna De La Paz West Side Washington St. north of Eisenhower Dr. 356 Du, 100 Ac The Grove West side Wash. St. south of 48th Avenue 1580 Du, 700 Ac Duna La Quint& South of 50th Avenue 147 Du, 40 Ac Crystal Canyon South of 52nd Avenue 672 Du, 360 Ac EXISTING RoADWAY HARA�IER15JIO Existing roadway characteristics are described in terms of right-of-way, pavement widths, and linear frontage per parcel on Washington Street; traffic control devices and speed limits; intersecting streets and driveways; bridges; curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Existing Right -of -Way, Pavement Widths, and Linear Frontage Sections of Washington Street which are built out to ulti- mate consist of the west side of the street from Highway 111 to south of Highland Palms Drive (in front of the church), and the west side of from just south of the future extension of 48th Avenue to Eisenhower Drive. Rights-of-way at these locations have been fully dedicated at 60 foot half -sections. The remainder of Washington Street is largely unimproved, with pavement and right-of-way widths varying. !stall Per parcel linear frontage along Washington Street, ultimate and existing half -width rights-of-way, and estimated costs (if purchased) are indicated in Appendix A. Traffic Control Devices and Speed Limits Signalization of Washington Street is currently limited to State Highway 111 (State-controlled), and Eisenhower Drive (City -controlled). Four-way stops exist at Country Club Drive, Fred Waring Drive, Miles Avenue, and 50th Avenue. A one-way stop exists at 52nd Avenue. The speed limit between Highway 111 and 52nd Avenue is currently posted at 45 miles per hour. The segment between Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 is currently unposted and presumed to be 55 miles per hour, in accordance with the basic speed law. Intersecting Streets and Driveways Washington Street is intersected by approximately 15 local residential streets, the majority of which are located within the southern portion of the Corridor between 52nd Avenue and one-half mile north of 50th Avenue. Two of these local streets, Singing Palms Drive and Highland Palms Drive, are located south of State Highway 111 and provide access from Washington Street to the adjacent residential tract. These two streets have varied pavement widths, and many of the local streets south of 50th Avenue are unimproved (not built out to ultimate widths and without curb and gutter). Fred Waring Drive, Highway 111, 52nd Avenue east of Washing- ton street to Jefferson are all General Plan designated as Major Arterials, with 120 foot ultimate right-of-way. 52nd Avenue is planned for realignment north to parallel Avenida Nuestra, and will be built out as part of adjacent develop- ment. 50th Avenue is designated as a primary arterial. Bridges The Washington Street corridor includes three bridge struc- tures. One is over the I-10 Freeway, one is over the Whitewater Channel, and the other is north of Avenida Ultimo at the La Quinta Storm Channel crossing. Plans for widening the I-10 bridge are contingent upon ultimate interchange modifications which require approval by Caltrans. Alterna- tive ultimate cross-sections for the other bridges are detailed in the "Corridor Alternatives" section of this Spe- cific Plan. The Whitewater Channel crossing is 520 foot in length and exists with a 40 foot pavement width plus a four foot sidewalk on the west side. It is designed for expansion to the east. The La Quinta Storm Channel crossing is 200 foot long and 40 foot wide plus a four foot sidewalk on the east side. It is designed for expansion to the west. -11- Curbs, Gutters, and Sidewalks Existing locations of improved segments of Washington Street (curb and gutter, sidewalks) are listed in Table II. All remaining sections of the roadway are either unimproved (edge of pavement only), or have asphaltic concrete (AC) curb, without gutter or sidewalk. Table II - Improved Roadway Sections Section Location Side of Roadway Fred Waring Drive to 1000' south east Whitewater Bridge to just north of Highway 111 east Highway 111 to Simon Drive east Highway 111 to Plaza La Quinta entrance west At 250' s/o Plaza La Quinta entrance to Singing Palms Drive west Singing Palms Drive to driveway s/o St. Francis of Assissi church west 48th Avenue to 50th Avenue west Bridge s/o 50th Avenue east & vest EXISTING UTILITY INFRASTRI&TURE Existing infrastructure was inventoried via field recon- naissance of street furniture and street lighting; and formal communications with utility firms responsible for telephone, gas, electricity, cable television, irrigation, storm drains and water. Street Furniture There are currently no bus benches or shelters at the bus stops along the study area section of Washington Street. Trash containers and pedestrian rest areas have also not been provided due to the previous lack of development along the corridor. Street Lighting Existing street lights along Washington Street are limited to major intersection safety lighting at Eisenhower Drive and Highway 111. -12- Telephone General Telephone Company indicated that existing telephone lines are primarily underground along the corridor, with exception of overhead lines along the section between Calle Tampico and 52nd Avenue. At Fred Waring Drive, the under- ground conduit is located on the west side of the roadway to Miles Avenue, then crosses over to the east side to Highway 111. The underground conduit then continues on the east side to the storm channel south of 50th Avenue, at which point it switches over to the west side through to Calle Tampico. Between Calle Tampico and 52nd Avenue, overhead lines are carried by the existing electric power poles on the east side. In addition, underground conduit is being installed on the west side in this section for the PGA West development. All telephone facilities on Washington Street will be underground for future developments. Gas The Southern California Gas Company indicated that the existing subterranean gas lines within the Washington Street corridor consist of a six inch medium pressure line and four inch high pressure line. The six inch line is located from Highway 111 to a point directly across from the Camino Palms Drive/Camino Dunes Place intersection (west of Washington Street and approximately 0.70 miles south of Highway 111); and between Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico. The four inch line is located along Washington Street between Highway 111 and Eisenhower Drive. Proposed facilities include six inch lines between Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111, and between Calle Tampico and 52nd Avenue, as required to service land use build out of adjacent areas. Electricit The Imperial Irrigation District maintains the electric power facilities within the corridor study area. The exist- ing pole line facilities are located along the east side of Washington Street from Fred Waring Drive to 52nd Avenue. A portion of the lines are on a private easement and/or outside of the existing roadway right-of-way. Between Miles Avenue and approximately 2,000 feet north of Miles Avenue, power poles are located approximately 15 feet within the ultimate curb and gutter location. North of Highway 111, poles are located just outside of the new curb and gutter south of the Whitewater Channel bridge. On the south of Highway 111, poles are located approximately 40 feet outside of the existing edge of pavement, and approximately 95 feet from the curb and gutter on the west side. The poles are separated from 40 to 50 feet off the edge of pavement from the latter location for the entrance driveway to the Washington Street Villas. -13- At the intersection of Eisenhower Drive, the two signal poles located across from the Eisenhower Drive leg would require removal as they are situated within the potential pavement area to be widened. From Eisenhower Drive, the pole locations begin to taper in towards the edge of pavement to approximately 15 feet from edge of pavement south to Sagebrush Avenue. The poles remain within 15 feet of the existing edge of pavement south to 52nd Avenue, with the exception of lines adjacent to the bridge south of 50th Avenue. Cable Television Cable television service is provided in the City of La Quinta by the Coachella Valley Television Company. Existing facilities consist of a cable line which is carried overhead via the power poles along the east side of Washington Street between Highway 111 and 52nd Avenue. A 600 foot section across from the Highland Palms Drive intersection is underground. Lines are located with the power lines on poles north of Highway 111 to approximately 900 feet south of Miles Avenue. At that point, the lines are underground for the remaining 900 feet to Miles Avenue. The facilities remain underground to approximately 200 north of the intersection at Fred Waring Drive. The lines are overhead again at that point to Avenue of the States, and underground to 42nd Avenue - in an underground trench with Southern California Edison power lines. Irrigation The Coachella Valley Water District maintains the existing irrigation system for the agricultural property in the Valley. The District indicated that an active irrigation pipe system is located between 50th Avenue and 52nd Avenue in the southern section of the study area. The pipe size ranges between 12 and 30 inches in diameter in this active system. The pipe is located on both the east and west sides of the roadway. This system is a gravity flow system which feeds off of the Coachella Canal. Irrigation pipe is additionally located along 50th Avenue west of Washington Street to feed the reservoir for the adjacent golf courses. These facilities are in turn fed by a pump system located at the intersection of Washington Street and 51st Avenue. In the easterly direction along 51st Avenue for a distance of approximately one-quarter mile, a pipe system services citrus and date crops. There is an abandoned system between 50th Avenue and approximately one and one-half miles to the north. There are no facilities north of State Highway 111. If existing agricultural uses are recycled into 'higher' land uses as development occurs along the Washington Street corridor, the irrigation system may be expected to be reduced or totally eliminated in this area. -14- Sewer The Coachella Valley Water District indicated that the existing sanitary sewer system within 200 feet of the corridor area includes a four inch and a six inch force. Proposed sewer facilities within the corridor are a minimum of an 18 -inch sewer, and a minimum of two 12 -inch sewer force mains. Storm Drains The two storm water channels under the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) are the Whitewater Channel north of Highway 111, and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel located south of 50th Avenue adjacent to the Duna La Quinta golf resort. Conversation with representatives of the Water District revealed that these facilities have been designed to accommodate projected levels of storm Water runoff. The Landmark Land Company which developed the Duna La Quinta resort, maintains the La Quinta Evacuation Channel under agreement with CVWD, in return for miscellaneous channel uses. Water The Coachella Valley Water District also maintains the potable water facilities within the study area, and indicated that existing lines include an 18 -inch domestic main on the east side of Washington Street from Fred Waring Drive to Highway 111, and on the west side of Washington Street from 47th Avenue to 50th Avenue. Proposed facilities will include a 24 -inch water main. EXISTING TRAFFIC CHARACIERISTj� Existing traffic conditions are characterized below in terms of traffic volumes and levels of service, traffic accidents, and transit service. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing average daily traffic volumes on Washington Street were gathered from the County of Riverside 24-hour two-way traffic counts taken between 1980 and 1984. As illustrated in Figure 3, these counts indicate approximately 7,800 average daily vehicles (ADT) south of Country Club Drive; 6,800 ADT south of Fred Waring Drive; 9,100 ADT south of Highway 111; and 4,300 ADT south of Eisenhower Drive. In view of the 10,000 ADT "capacity" value generally associated with a two lane roadway, all Washington Street corridor segments are calculated to experience acceptable average daily "levels of service". Levels of service (LOS) are a range of alphabetical connotations A through F, where A indicates "best", C represents general plan design, and F references system failure. -15- Figure 3 EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES -Ie- However, the Washington Street segment south of Highway 111 is at 91 percent of capacity, indicating a need to program short rance improvements at this location. The subject Washington Street segment south of Highway 111 is affected in large part by the operation of the five phase traffic signal at the Washington Street/Highway 111 inter- section. During a mid-April PM peak hour, this intersection was documented as servicing 2,082 entering vehicles. The entering vehicles were categorized by movement and input to Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) to calculate the existing PM peak hour LOS, as depicted in Appendix B. Reference to Appendix B shows the CMA procedure which calculated an acceptable LOS C operation at this intersection; and that modification of the current split phase for each approach signal operation to provide simultaneous east -west left turns on Highway 111 was calculated to result in a LOS B+. Further evaluation of CMA forms note the critical volumes to be comprised of eastbound throughs, westbound throughs, southbound throughs and northbound throughs. Northbound left turns are relatively high, but not critical. Figure 4 illustrates the effect of signal phasing upgrade on critical volumes in comparison with peak capacity. Traffic Accident Locations and Priority Listin The data collection process for the identification of high accident rate locations involved 1) subdividing the Washing- ton Street Corridor into two midblock and 17 intersection locations; 2) quantifying midblock segment average daily traffic volumes, distance in miles, general plan des- ignations, speed limits, and zoning of adjacent parcels; 3) documenting intersection daily entering vehicles; and 4) research of City of La Quinta State Wide Integrated Traffic Record System (SWITRS) data for the three year period of 1982 to 1984, and extraction of relevant data. SWITRS data included, for each location, all injury and property damage only accidents reported, time and date of collision, direc- tion and actions of involved parties; and primary collision factors. Figure 5 illustrates the two midblock segment and nine intersection locations of Washington Street where accidents were found to occur in excess of typical rates. A comprehensive listing of midblock segments, facility types, adjacent zoning, speed limits, average daily traffic and length in miles is provided in Table III; and a listing of intersection locations and respective total daily entering vehicles is presented in Table IV. It should be noted that Washington Street corridor intersections begin with number 12 in order to maintain consistency with previous traffic safety analysis activities completed for the City of La Quinta by BSI Consultants, Inc. -17- 1400 1200 m :ot .to 400 200 If Figure 4 SR 1 1 1 /WASHINGTON STREET PM PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS PEAK CAPACITY C � EXISTING UPGRADED —18— leg] Figure 5 HIGH ACCIDENT INTERSECTION & MIDBLOCK LOCATIONS -19- Table III - Midblock Location Data Adjacent Speed Average Lengt Segment Zoning Limit Daily_Traffic in Miles Eisenhower Dr. to Highway 111 Residential/ Commercial 45 71900 2.7 52nd Avenue to Eisenhower Dr. Residential 45 4,300 3.5 Table IV - Intersection Location Data Intersection Location No. __ and Cross Street Daily Entering Vehicles 12. Avenue 52 3,500 13. Avenida Nuestra 4,500 14. Calle Paloma 4,450 15. Calle Obispo 4,500 16. Calle Tampico 5,500 17. Avenida Tujunga 4,560 18. Avenida Ultimo 4,560 19. Avenue 50 6,700 20. Padre Drive 4,700 21. E1 Hijo 4,650 22. Saguaro Road 4,560 23. Bottle Brush Avenue 4,560 24. Sagebrush Avenue 4,560 25. Eisenhower Drive 9,400 26. Highland Palms Drive 9,500 27. Simon Drive/Singing Palms Drive 9,800 28. Highway 111 24,500 The research of SWITRS annual accident reports was based upon a three year accident data base. In accordance with the Los Angeles County Road Department (LACRD) methodology, intersection accidents included all pedestrian accidents, right angle, and left turn accidents in intersections, and rear end collisions on the approach up to 299 feet away from the intersection on intersecting roads. Midblock accidents included all other accidents. To enable the efficient and ongoing surveillance of accident locations along the corridor, MicroSafety was employed. MicroSafety is an IBM compatible, basic program designed to calculate total accident rates, and accident rates by collision type at each location. Further, MicroSafety will priority list accident locations by frequency,' rate, or Collision Index (i.e., frequency times rate). Although separate files were established for each Washington Street corridor intersection and mid block location, the City may expand MicroSafety to include other locations Citywide, and/or continue to input accident data on a quarterly or even weekly basis. -20- with the flexibility designed with MicroSafety, accident rates may be calculated for any quarterly period or any combination of consecutive quarterly periods. This enables "trend analysis" (e.g., where did accidents most frequently occur during the most recent quarter?) in addition to "before -and -after" analysis of improvements. MicroSafety also outputs priority listings of midblock segment and intersection locations. For each of the two midblock and 17 intersection locations, the MicroSafety program calculated the average annual accident frequencies and rates - both in total and by accident type. The accident analyses for all locations is provided in Appendix C. Midblock accident rates (i.e., frequency as weighted by some measure of exposure) were calculated on the basis of number of collisions per Million Vehicle Miles (MVM), where the rate equals: Average Annual Accident Frequency x 1 Million ADT x 365 Days/Year x Distance Intersection rates were calculated in terms of number of ac- cidents per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV) where the rate equals: Ave Annual Accident Frequency x 1 Million 24-hour Intersection Entering Volume x 365 Days Table V and Table VI respectively indicate the ranking of the 11 highest intersection and midblock locations, priority listed by Collision Index. Table V -21- U I T I u F L A v U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I 1) N A C C I D E N T P R I O R I T Y FIR IORIIY ACCTDENT ANNUAL COLLISION NO INTERSECTION RATE FRE9UENCY INDEX 1 WASHINGTON STREET AT 50JH AVE14LIE ( 19) l . Q1 4.b7 8.91 2 WASHINGTON STREET AT EISENHOWER DRIVE ( 25) 1.46 5.UU 7.2<) 3 WASHINGTON STREET AT ROUIE Ill ( 28) 0.76 7.UO 5.48 4 WASHINGTON STREET Al C:ALLF T AMP I CO ( 16 ) 1 . 16 2.33 2.71 5 WASHINGTON STREET AT 52ND AVENUE ( 12) 0.52 0. t-7 0.35 c, WASHINGTON STREET AT HIGHLAND PALMS DRIVE ( 20 0.19 0. t-7 0.13 7 WASHINGTiiN STREET AT SIM(:)N DRIVE/SINGING, PALMS( 27) 0.19 O. t,7 0.12 8 WASHINGTON STREET AT CALLS OBISPO ( 15) 0.20 0.33 0.07 9 WASHINGTON STREET AT BOTTIF BRUSH DRIVE ( 23) 0.20 0.33 0.07 -21- Table VI C I T Y O F L A Q U I N T A M I D B L O C I A C C I D E N T LOCATION PRIOR I T Y PRIORITY ACCIDENT ANNUAL COLLISION NO MIDBLOCK LOCATION RATE FREQUENCY. INDEX -- -- -ir---------- 1 WASHINGTON STREET EISENHOWER DRIVE/ROUTE 11.1 ( 3) 0.34 2.67 0.91 2 WASHINGTON STREET 52ND AVENUE/EISENHOWER DRIVE( 2) 0.18 1.00 0.18 Transit Service Washington Street is currently serviced by the Sunline Transit Company which also serves neighboring cities in the Coachella Valley. Line 4, the route which services the La Quinta area, follows a loop path from the Palm Desert Town Center. It proceeds east along Fred Waring Drive, then south at Washington Street, past Highway 111, to Eisenhower Drive, then proceeds west on Eisenhower Drive and south to Calle Tampico. Bus stop locations and time tables are listed in Table VII below. Generally, one hour headways are provided between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, Monday through Saturday. The new equipment being added to the Sunline bus fleet provides a seating capacity of 46 passe::gers. Thus, if incentives to increase transit ridership to 100 percent of existing capacity approximately 1,000 average daily person trips would be completed by bus. As previously indicated, no transit stop amenities are located along the Washington Street corridor at the present time. Table VII Transit Route Stop Locations and Times Stop Location Intersection Fred Waring Drive Highway 111 Eisenhower Drive Eisenhower Dr./Calle Tampico -22- Stop Time (minutes after the hour) :10 :08 :06 :02 Future Washington Street corridor conditions will depend upon the land use interactions and trip generation charac- teristics of new development in the City; and the ultimate Washington Street roadway constructed - including access characteristics for adjacent development. As noted previously, the Washington Street corridor is being planned for several large scale residential developments. Typically, dwelling units that are larger in size, more expensive or further away from the central business districts have a higher trip generation rate per unit. Planned Unit Developments, however, have demonstrated that the type of adjacent and nearby development effects trip generation rates. For example, less trips will be made for recreational or neighborhood shopping purposes if such facilities are provided within the development. Ultimate Roadway According to the City of La Quinta's General Plan Circulation Element, Washington Street between the I-10 and 52nd Avenue is designated as a Major Arterial with 120 feet of ultimate right-of-way, except for the area generally between Avenue 48 and Singing Palms Drive which will have a 202 -foot right-of-way to accommodate a frontage road. Figure 6 illustrates the cross-section roadway dimensions for Major Arterials as given in the City's General Plan. As illustrated,' the subject cross-section includes a curb -to -curb pavement width of 96 feet, two 12 -foot parkways, and a maximum median island width of 18 feet. The illustration for the intersection at Highland Palms Drive and Washington Street is shown on Figure 13, Revised. Either four or six travel lanes may be provided, depending upon inclusion of bicycle lanes and the median island width. Alternative roadway configurations are presented in Figure 7 and Figure 8. EVIURE TRAFFVOLVMES A traffic generation forecast was conducted in the 'Areawide Traffic and Circulation Study' (Specific Plan J 84-004) for the City of La Quinta in 1984. Ultimate traffic forecasts were calculated based upon existing traffic volumes on Wash- ington Street, traffic generated by future developments, and the circulatory system which may be available to service these volumes. Through this process, various projections were made for ADT volumes on Washington Street - with assumptions of Madison Street not being extended north of 54th Avenue; and Washington Street arterial build out as a six lane facility. The following projections, depicted in Figure 9, were made for the Washington Street segments noted. -23- 120' R/W , oe 12 MAJOR ARTERIAL 10 /W 1 121 78# 12' 1 PRIMARY ARTERIAL 88' R/W 12' 64' 1 2' rt� s SECONDARY STREET 00' **R/W 1 1' 44' 11' COLLECTOR STREET R/W WIDTH MAY VARY FROM 100 TO 1TO FEET ** R/W WIDTH MAY VARY FROM e4 TO 72 FEET Figure 8 TYPICAL CROSS—SECTIONAL ROADWAY DIMENSIONS -24- PLAN VIEW WASHINGTON STREET PARKWAY ALTERNATIVES SHEET 1 of 2 Figure 7 SCHEMATIC NOT TO SCALE 9 PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY ee' ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1 2 -WAY BIKEWAY ►EDESTIIAN WALKWAY 2 -WAY BIKEWAY PLAN VIEW :m =� Mm PEDESTRIAN ►IDESTRIAN •s {I W AIKWAY WALKWAY .iy.{JII 2 -WAY BIKEWAY " IR�111 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 2 2 -WAY BIKEWAY PLAN VIEW -2s- ti IL �x v N►11iA 5)�jmyi �.. •1 1 I @' •' i' :'�' 14, 12' l! !! pp I ►EDEBTRIAN WALKWAY 1—WAV BIKEWAY PLAN VIEW A � t24 14* 12' 1I`PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY 1—WAY •IKIWAY PLAN VIEW WASHINGTON STREET PARKWAY ALTERNATIVES SHEET 2 of 2 Figure 8 OCNEMATIC: NOT TO ,GALE ss' ALTERNATIVE PLAN 3 1 -WAY BIKEWAY ALTERNATIVE PLAN 4 1 -WAY BIKEWAY R/W — I 1 12. ►EDEITRIAN WALK WAY I—WAY OIKEWA'I Mill PLAN VIEW �y l Iti W t} 14' 7' 4' i ,�• 1t' ►EOEITRIAN WALKWAY �I I-WAY ■IKEwAr 11{�I I:. I PLAN VIEW Figure 9 ULTIMATE PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC -27- Location Projected Avg. Daily Vehicles South of Avenue 50 32,000 South of Avenue 48 39,000 South of Highway 111 36,000 South of Interstate 10 55,000 CORRIDOR CURCULAI ON ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES To facilitate the development and analyses of Washington Street circulation alternatives, the corridor was subdivided into four segments. For the individual segments, individual alternative components were developed to improve capacity, service levels, and traffic safety for ultimate conditions. I-10 FREEWAY To FRED WART zDRIVE This segment was forecasted to service an ultimate demand of 55,000 ADT, assuming no extension of Madison Street. Theoretically, provision of an acceptable level of service would require construction of an eight lane divided facility and/or a capacity of 60,000 ADT. Construction cost estimates for such capacity approximates 10 million dollars (e.g., 2.15 miles constructed as eight lanes with median divider, at $500,000 per lane mile equals $9,675,000 in 1985 dollars). Alternatively, provision of a six lane divided facility with intensive Transportation System Management (TSM) appli- cations to preserve roadway capacity may provide acceptable LOS. Construction costs associated with build out of a six lane divided facility, based on above -stated assumptions, approximate. $7,525,000 - nearly 2.5 million dollars less than the eight lane alternative. TSM measures to be incorporated as an integral part of the six lane Washington Street alternative include major spot widening (preceded by side street General Plan designation upgrade and associated right-of-way acquisition for approximate distances of 400 foot from Washington Street centerline) at Washington Street intersections with Country Club Drive, 42nd Avenue, Fred Waring Drive, and Miles Avenue; cul-de-sac construction to eliminate intersections with Calypso Road, Delaware Street, Mountain View, and Darby Road; limitation of access driveways to minimum 250 foot spacing; 400 foot minimum spacing between median openings for channelized left turns; and traffic signal installation (with full traffic actuated design and time based signal interconnection) at Country Club Drive, 41st Avenue, 42nd Avenue, Hidden River Road, and Fred Waring Drive. -28- Estimated construction costs for the alternative TSM measur- es are $250,000 per intersection spot widened ($750,000 total for three intersections); $20,000 per cul-de-sac con- structed ($80,000 total for four cul-de-sacs); and $90,000 per traffic signal ($450,000 total for five locations). The latter signals would be required as part of either the eight lane or six lane alternative. A more intensive alternative, likely to be required in conjunction with either of the above, involves recon- struction of the I-10 interchange operation. The present design of this interchange features a typical half -diamond pair of on and off ramps for eastbound freeway traffic and less conventional pair of on off hook ramps for westbound traffic. The westbound hook ramps are also offset from the eastbound ramps. Caltrans should serve as the lead agency for a separate study of this regionally important issue. FRIEDWAR NC DRIVE TO HIGHWAY- This segment is characterized by the reverse angle curve which results in a one-half mile shift (from the southbound perspective, from west to east) in the Washington Street alignment. A major bridge structure also exists to cross the Whitewater River Flood Control Channel. In view of the projected 55,000 ADT south of I-10 and the 36,000 ADT south of Highway 111, the Washington Street corridor segment between Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 may be expected to serve a minimum of 45,000 ADT at ult-=ate build out. If TSM measures are employed, acceptable levels of service may be provided by a six lane divided facility. A six lane divided facility construction cost is estimated at six million -one hundred thousand dollars - $4,020,000 for road widening and $2,080,000 for Whitewater bridge widening. Given the six lane divided build out and intensive TSM applications along the subject Washington Street corridor segment, alternatives involve the designs of Miles Avenue and State Highway 111 intersections. Miles Avenue is the only existing intersection between Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111. This east -west link may become an important access route to developments in the City of Indian Wells and Riverside County to the west, and the City of Indio to the east. The City's General Plan designation for Miles Avenue is a Secondary Roadway, which will have ultimate right of way and pavement widths of 88 and 64 feet respectively. -29- Two alternatives were developed for the Miles Avenue inter- section with Washington Street. The first, proposed by the City of Indian Wells, would close off Miles Avenue west of Washington Street to accommodate a major hotel/resort development (i.e., the Desert Classic Resort Hotel). The second alternative would maintain access to the west and provide for intersection spot widening by upgrading the current Secondary classification to that of Primary Arterial standards for approximate distances of 400 foot from the Washington Street centerline. Signalization would also be required as part of this alternative. Total estimated construction costs for upgrading and signalizing the Miles Avenue intersection approximate $330,000. Highway 11119 intersection with Washington Street serves as the main entrance into the City. It's existing peak month 22,800 ADT was forecasted in the City's General Plan to increase to an ultimate 71,000 ADT east of Washington Street and 94,000 west of Washington Street. Because Highway 111 provides local access it can not be expected to service such volumes; capacity restraint may be expected to divert much of this traffic to parallel facilities. One alternative would provide a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane for commuters on Highway 111. The HOV lanes would be in addition to the six lanes existing on Highway 111. Further, raised a median island would replace the current two-way left turn lane to channelize left turns. A second Highway 111/Washington Street intersection alter- native, which may be implemented with or without the HOV lane alternative, would provide major intersection widening with dual left turn pockets, three through lanes, and a separate right turn only lane on each approach. In addition, the existing median island mounted left turn indicators on Highway 111 would be replaced via mounting on an overhead mast arm; and the signal phasing would be upgraded to full eight -phase operation. Of course, illuminated street name signs would also be mast arm mounted. This alternative would require a 140 foot ultimate right-of-way width on all intersection legs for approxi- mately 400 foot distances from the intersection centerline. Curb to curb pavement widths of 120 foot and parkways of 10 foot widths would be provided. This alternative is is construction cost estimated at $450,000. It is illustrated in Figure 10. -30- RIGHT TURN ONLY LANE (TYPICAL) FAR SIDE Bus ZONE :TYPICAL) 300, TYPICAL 101— TYP. I K 10' Yl ; 3 IQ I I � 70• mat. s 120 3 go, R— 4 12' SECTION Figure 10 WASHINGTON STREET/HIGHWAY 111 INTERSECTION WIDENING -31- This segment was forecasted to serve 36,000 ADT at build out. It will require a six lane divided facility with TSM applications and signalization or upgrade at the three intersections, at respective construction cost estimates of four million dollars ($4,000,000) and $350,000. A special design alternative was developed for the Washington Street Corridor from Singing Palms Drive to Highland Palms Drive, where an existing single-family residential development on the west side is accessed directly from Washington Street; and vacant property is located on the east side of the corridor. The latter opportunity is used to realign Washington Street approximately 44 feet to the east and create a 32 -foot wide frontage road with a 12 -foot wide greenbelt buffer between the residences and Washington Street. This alternative would include Washington Street generally between Avenue 48 and Singing Palms Drive. It would restrict the Singing Palms Drive intersection with Washington Street to allow southbound right turn ingress only; install a five -phase signal at the Highland Palms Drive intersection; provide parking on the residence side of the frontage road; a soundwall and landscaping buffer, and a landscaped median divider on Washington Street. The subject alternative, construction cost estimated at $850,000, is illustrated in Figures 11, 12, and 12A. Eisenhower Drive is one of the major cross -street intersec- tions on Washington Street, and is one of two intersections which is signalized (four-phase) at this time. The proposed development of The Grove on the east side of Washington Street will create a four legged Eisenhower Drive/Washington Street intersection. This will require signal modification, including relocation of existing equipment. Full traffic actuated eight -phase signal operation should be provided for ultimate conditions. Along this segment, the roadway is currently built to provide 33 to 47 feet of travel width. Several residential access streets abut the roadway. Traffic controls consist of a signal at Eisenhower Drive, a four-way stop at 50th Avenue, and a three-way stop at 52nd Avenue. A total of 13 cross streets. and one major bridge structure are located within this segment. Washington Street curves westward from Eisenhower Drive south to approximately Avenida Montero, which accesses the west side of the corridor. At Avenida Montero, Washington Street returns to its' original straight configuration south to 50th Avenue. As with the above segment, the west side of this segment is developed with a row of single family homes, separated from the roadway by a narrow strip of landscaped median island. -32- N .v TYPICAL SECTION W I- REALIGNED WA INGTON STREET I NEW FRONTAGEI •► ROAD I ' 'IF'o r rr i �rE;irrrrr // rimrr�,rrr , wl tul RESTRICT ACCESS BY _ VAI 1 —�- ONE-WAY ENTRANCE ONLY " ., I `.r^ _ VIA SEPARATE RIGHT TURN ONLY LANE \ Vol ON �, .. s,• � � ,•,� � r�CrEl1 hat WASHINGTON �: r'•.itE STREET ,1.�., ••• �; rwry..► ��' `., r. r �. �d RaC� � SIGNALIZE. ' ! • � y,�'�,.!• " _ .• LITE. .. DAVE ....,. FRONTA09 •,.. .�• r ROAD •e r � .'L . Z Figure 11 WASHINGTON STREET -REALIGNMENT SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 REVISED mom 33 Figure 12 TYPICAL SECTION FOR WASHINGTON STREET REALIGNMENT SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 REVISED 4#~.zo- I I Figure 12 TYPICAL SECTION FOR WASHINGTON STREET REALIGNMENT SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 REVISED 4#~.zo- } N not to scale SA/ry OMIlw9Ar ,• It II I -33W jmagu — — — 1••Il ��I .1 41 l• I� 34 A . z W 2 �z V J Q W Cr W Q H z C a Z LL O'r F- 0 A� z� I Q r N V- • O LL The horizontal curvature of the roadway in this area is viewed as a benefit, in that it serves to reduce the "dragstrip" effect usually associated with lengthy arterials designed for higher speeds, such as that designated for Washington Street. The project ADT's at ultimate build out along this segment range from 39,000 north of 50th Avenue to 32,000 north of 52nd Avenue. The 39,000 ADT would definitely require a six lane divided facility; The 32,000 ADT may be provided acceptable levels of service with a four lane divided facility and intensive cul-de-sac construction to close existing local street intersections. The full six lane alternative for this segment is construction cost estimated at $5,075,000 for road widening plus $800,000 for La Quinta Storm Channel bridge widening (total $5,875,000). Alternatively, reduction of Washington Street to a four lane divided facility between 50th Avenue and 52nd Avenue is construction cost estimated to total $4,505,000 - in increments of $2,275,000 for a six lane divided facility between Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue, $1,750,000 for a four lane divided facility between 50th Avenue and 52nd Street, and $480,000 for bridge widening. 50th Avenue provides east -west access to the southern section of La Quinta and the City of Indio to the east. It is General Plan designated as a Primary Arterial The latter is viewed as sufficient to provide for ultimate demand. However, an alternative was developed to upgrade the designation of 50th Avenue west of Washington Street to a Major Arterial for an approximate distance of 400 foot from the intersection centerline. Intersection signalization will be necessary to service ultimate travel demands. Construction costs were estimated at $120,000. Calle Tampico's intersection with Washington Street is a "front door' access to the Civic Center and the established core of downtown La Quinta. As such, an alternative was developed to provide signalization and special landscape and aesthetic treatment, as further detailed in the 'Landscape Alternatives" section of this report. The estimated signalization cost is $90,000. 52nd Avenue is located at the southern -most boundary of the Corridor study area, and will become a major carrier of traffic into La Quinta from developing communities to the east and south. It is General Plan designated as a Primary Arterial west of Washington Street; and as a Major Arterial east of Washington Street. The alternative developed for this intersection, identical to that for 50th Avenue, calls for the upgrade of 52nd Avenue west of Washington Street to a Major Arterial for a 400 foot distance from intersection centerline, and eight -phase traffic actuated signalization, with an associated construction cost estimate of $120,000. -35- 110FEMINICKU102 The planning of utility and streetscape infrastructure, when properly integrated with urban and transportation planning, results in the enhancement of ultimate development. Alterna- tive components are respectively discussed below on a corridor wide basis. VT ILITY INFRA5TRQQTURE ALTERNATIVES Design parameters for utility infrastructure generally in- clude the ultimate extent of the service area, the ultimate service area population, and the projected per capita service level requirements. Many of the design criteria have been reduced to engineering rules of thumb for use by responsible agencies. For example, gas mains typically require 20 foot wide easements with no trees or textured pavement to interfere with future repair or maintenance activities. Sewer and water systems also prefer no tree plantings over pipes, and require a minimum 10 foot separation between facilities. In consideration of the engineering rules of thumb and responses from affected agencies, the following utility infrastructure alternative components were developed. Telephone lines are largely underground along the Washington Street corridor. Existing overhead lines on the east side of Washington Street between Calle Tampico and 52nd Street are being undergrounded on the west side as part of the PGA West development. Once underground, the logical alternative is to keep all future telephone lines underground. Gas mains are planned for extension as six inch low pressure facilities between Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive, and between Calle Tampico and 52nd Avenue. Both extensions are on the west side of Washington Street, consistent with existing gas infrastructure locations. Premised upon a typical cost of $50 per linear foot, the planned improve- ments are respectively estimated at $300,000 and $95,000. Electricity and cable television lines exist as overhead, power pole mounted facilities. One alternative would maintain the overhead operation via relocation of ultimate pole locations. The more aesthetically pleasing alternative is to underground the lines. This may be accomplished on the east side of Washington Street with the exception of the area between 50th Avenue and 52nd Avenue - where existing utilities and substructures dictate undergrounding on the west side; and at the two storm channel crossings - where the lines would be in a bridge cell of 15 feet below the bottom of the channel (if practical), or overhead. The estimated cost of undergrounding along the entire corridor, based on $155 per linear foot, is (rounded) five million dollars ($5,000,000). -37- Sewerage system sizing depends on the assumed gallons per capita per day rate on consumption of potable water. Through empirical studies, wastewater outflow rates have been shown to approximate. 70 percent of the potable water inflow rates. The CVWD has determined a minimum 18 -inch sew- er with a minimum of two 12 -inch force mains as necessary to service ultimate demand. In view of existing water mains, the sewerage facilities may most appropriately be located on the east side of Washington Street between State Highway 111 and 52nd Avenue; and on the west side of Washington Street north of Highway ill. At a cost assumption of $30 per linear foot, provision of the subject 187inch sewer along the entire Washington street corridor is estimated at nine hundred seventy thousand dollars ($970,000). Potable water facilities are planned by CVWD to increase from the existing 18 -inch domestic main to a 24 -inch main. As discussed under the sewerage system, the most appropriate alternative would be to maintain their existing locations. At a $50 per linear foot cost assumption, the estimated cost for provision of the main along the entire corridor is one million six hundred ten thousand dollars ($1,610,000). Water for fire suppression purposes along the Washington Street corridor may most efficiently be provided by locating fire hydrants at an approximate spacing of 600 feet, with each consecutive hydrant located on opposite sides of Washington Street. This calculates to slightly more than 100 fire hydrants along the entire corridor. At a construction cost estimate of $2,500 per hydrant, a total of two hundred sixty thousand dollars ($260,000) would be required. 5TR ETSCA ALTERNATIVES Alternative streetscape components include sidewalks, street lights, street pavement textures, bus shelters and trash receptacles, landscaping and noise walls. Sidewalk alterna- tives are shown in Figures 7 and 8. street lighting is a means of improving the urban environ- ment through increased comfort, convenience, and safety of night -traffic operation and reduced crime and accidents. Lighting provides traffic safety by illuminating hazardous objects or hazardous situations so that the driver may respond safely. Pedestrians and/or bicyclists must also be able to see distinctly the pedestrian/bicycle path and its relationship to vehicles and possible obstacles. In view of preferred 200 foot spacing of street lights, the street light poles are possible obstacles. Street lights located within raised median island locations may be most effective in mitigating accident potential. The number of light poles would be only one-half of the number required for street lighting on each side of the roadway; bicyclists and pedestrians would not encounter the poles as obstacles, and would benefit from their light. -38- Raised curb medians may be expected to prevent conflicts between automobiles and the light poles. Street lights are recommended to be located every 200 foot in the center median. Alternatively, street lights may be located every 200 foot on poles located on the east and vest sides of Washington Street; or at intersections only, with minimal accent lighting along the midblock sidewalks. With the exception of the accent lighting, Washington Street lighting is recommended via high pressure sodium lamps. High pressure sodium generally provides the best light level and dispersion for adequate motorist and pedestrian safety. Hid - block lighting with center median pole locations would require approximately 160 poles; 320 poles would be needed for lighting with poles located on each side of Washington Street. For 100 watt, 9,500 lumen street lights, the $2,500 per unit cost estimate translates to a $400,000 initial cost estimate for the median location alternative; and $800,000 for poles on each side of Washington Street. The provision of safety lighting (250 watt, 30,000 lumens) at Washington Street intersections with Country Club Drive, Fred Waring Drive, Miles Avenue, Highland Palms Drive, and Calle Tampico is estimated at $60,000 ($12,000 per location). Similar costs may be anticipated for relocating existing safety lighting at the Washington Street intersec- tions with Highway 111, Eisenhower Drive, 50th Avenue and 52nd Avenue - for a total intersection safety lighting alternative cost of $108,000. Accent lighting costs vary considerably by post designs. Brochures which illustrate available styles are enclosed with this report. Street pavement textures must be functional, but may also be interesting and pleasing to the eye. The materials used may be varied to convey a unique character for the Washington Street corridor. Concrete is recommended for the majority of Washington Street and sidewalk construction. It is a relatively inexpensive and durable paving material, to which both color and texture may be introduced. The exposed - aggregate concrete method may be used to provide pink, gray, blue, green, brown, and black finishes which are both slip -resistant and durable. Textured concrete surfaces may be produced in geometric patterns to resemble stone, brick, the paving, or rectangular or square panels. Such street pavement aesthetics may be obtained for an additional one dollar per square foot of pavement. If limited to pedestrian crossings at Washington Street intersections, (assuming an average 10 foot width across each intersection leg) colored and patterned concrete may be provided at an additional cost of approximately $3,500 per intersection. Bus shelters should be provided at all Washington Street stops, in view of the weather conditions in the Valley. In addition, complete bus route information should be presented at all stops; and trash receptacles provided. -39- To facilitate traffic flow and traffic safety, all stops should be located on the far side of intersections, and be designed for bus bay turnouts. Assuming no utility reloca- tion requirements would be associated with this alternative, a per location cost estimate of $15,000 is calculated. Landscaping along the Washington Street corridor will be provided both within the ultimate roadway median and along the east and west parkways. Median landscaping is envisioned with attractive desert plantings which require low maintenance and watering; parkway landscaping is desired with one predominant tree type on undulating mounds (over and through which the sidewalk would traverse). The latter would be within the 12 foot shoulder areas of the Washington Street right-of-way and within an additional, flexible, 20 foot wide setback from the right-of-way line. Three landscape theme alternatives were developed for the Washington Street corridor. As depicted on the accompanying large-scale exhibits, the subject concepts include three alternative entrance monuments to identify the City of La Quinta (it is important to note that no additional right of way will be required, as the monument may be designed for construction within the median island); three wall treatment designs for the segment of Washington Street between Singing Palms Drive and Highland Palms Drive (one shows the closure of Singing Palms Drive and entrance into tract via Highland Palms Drive); and intersection treatments for collector and secondary streets and Washington Street. A list of recommended plant species is given in Appendix D of this report. Noise wall existing and potential locations to protect the residential tracts along the corridor are also illustrated on the large-scale exhibits forwarded with this report. As the alternatives are shown, the existing wall on the west side of Washington Street between Eisenhower Drive is extended to 50th Avenue; and a noise wall for the residential section on the west side of Washington Street between Highland Palms Drive and Singing Palms Drive is conceptually illustrated. g.E OMMENDED MlTh�N MEQ Recommended mitigation projects are presented in Table VIII. The mitigations are listed in generalized priority of imple- mentation need. Construction cost estimates are also refer- enced in 1985 estimated dollars. Appendix E contains unit cost data. It may be necessary to add an inflation factor, perhaps four percent per year, to better reflect the ultimate implementation costs of the respective mitigation projects. The City's objectives for the acquisition of necessary right of way include: 1) To minimize, to the extent reasonable, the acquisition of property for the street right of way; 2) 1E.t1E To allow for adjustments in the right of way width and/or design when possible in order to minimize conflicts with existing development, while still maintaining the integrity of the plan's objectives; and 3) To acquire portions of par- cels, when possible, rather than entire parcels in order to minimize land acquisition costs. The estimated costs of land acquisition and construction of improvements are based on the following assumptions: * Improvements to Washington Street are anticipated to occur over the next 15 year period. * Using current costs as a basis, a six percent per year inflation factor has been added for the 15 year per- iod. Construction of the improvements or acquisition of the land at the start of the 15 year period will be at a lower cost than improvements done in later years. • The cost of the City installing the improvements is generally higher than they would be if a private developer is performing the work due to additional requirements placed upon the City by State law. * The land acquisition costs are only general estimates. Actual costs will vary upon the means necessary to acquire the right-of-way, the necessity to acquire an entire parcel rather than portion, and other factors. In addition to the specific actions in Table VIII, it is recommended that the City adopt the walkway/bicycle path plan to provide a six foot wide pedestrian path along one side and an eight foot wide, two-way bicycle path on the opposite side to be installed in the Washington Street park- way areas. Where feasible, the paths shall be meandering. Minor adjustments to the standards due to site constraints/ conflicts with existing improvements may be approved by the City. Further, it is recommended that the City develop and imple- ment a plan establishing design theme and specifications for public signage along Washington Street, including direction- al/guide signage. This process shall include adoption of the proposed entry monument design concept as shown on Exhi- bit 'CO. Finally, it is recommended that the City adopt the landscaping plan which uses trees, shrubs, and ground cover materials indicated in Appendix D. Table VIII - Recommended Mitigation Measures and Costs Priority Project Cost Est. 1. Upgrade General Plan designations of Wash- $ 0 ington Street intersections with Country Club Drive, 42nd Avenue, Fred Waring Drive, Miles Avenue, Highway 111, 50th Avenue and 52nd Avenue, and adopt the street lighting plan in accordance with Figure 7 Alter.#1. -41- TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OF ALL PROJECTS $33,390,000 (Thirty-three million -three hundred -ninety thousand dollars) -42- Table VIII, Cont. Priority Project Cost Est. 2. Widen Washington Street to 6 lanes between $ 850,000 Singing Palms Drive and Avenue 48, per Figure 11 of this text, and signalize Washington at Highland Palms. 3. 50th Avenue/Washington Street intersection $ 65,000 spot widening and safety lighting. 4. Highway 111/Washington Street intersection $ 450,000 spot widening and traffic signal upgrade. 5. Install sewerage system. $ 970,000 6. Underground electric and cable TV lines. $5,000,000 7. Install water mains and fire hydrants. $1,890,000 8. Cul-de-sac Bottlebrush Drive, Saguaro Drive, $ 140,000 Calle Paloma (2 locations), & Calle Obispo (2 locations). 9. Widen Washington Street to six lanes, $5,340,000 between Highland Palms Drive and Avenue 50, with Avenue 50 signalized. 10. Construct ultimate sidewalks, landscaping, $ 425,000 and transit amenities between Highway 111 and 50th Avenue. 11. Extend gas line between Calle Tampico and $ 95,000 52nd Avenue. 12. Widen Washington Street to 4 -lanes divided $2,575,000 between 50th Avenue and the realigned 52nd Avenue, with safety lighting and intersec- tion signalization & enhancements at Calle Tampico and 52nd Avenue; and the La Quinta Channel bridge widened. 13. Construct ultimate sidewalks, landscaping, $ 75,000 and transit amenities between 50th Avenue and 52nd Avenue. 14. Extend gas line between Fred Waring Drive $ 300,000 and Highway 111. 15. Widen Washington Street to 6 -lanes between $6,430,000 Fred Waring Drive & Highway 111, including Whitewater Flood Control channel bridge, & spot widening and signalization of Miles Avenue intersection. 16. Construct ultimate sidewalks, landscaping, $ 250,000 and transit amenities between Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111. 17. Widen Washington Street to 6 -lanes between $8,535,000 I-10 and Fred Waring Drive, including ult- imate sidewalks, landscaping, and transit amenities, and cul-de-sacs at Calypso Road, Delaware Street, Mountain View, and Darby. 18. Design and construct preferred interchange Unknown upgrade at Washington Street and I-10. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OF ALL PROJECTS $33,390,000 (Thirty-three million -three hundred -ninety thousand dollars) -42- New direct access onto Washington Street from adjoining single-family lots shall be avoided. Alternative access plans for affected existing shingle -family lots shall be developed by the City. .joint access may be employed to maximize the capacity provi- ded by Washington Street. Generally each land parcel should be permitted access through one driveway, either on the par- cel or as part of joint access. Presidential driveway access to arterial streets, however, should be limited to major 'cluster- developments. The minimum distance between the property line of a parcel and the nearest edge of the nearest driveway to that property line should be 75 feet, except if the driveway provides joint access to more than one parcel. A joint access driveway may be located on the property line. Roadway access for new development proposals shall be based on applicable standards within the La Quinta General Plan and requirements of the City Engineer, as they relate to a specific project. Proposals will be reviewed on a case-by- case basis with respect to the guidelines of this study and the standards indicated above. Driveways should be spaced a minimum of 200 feet apart to provide safe traffic operation on arterials and driveways. Where such spacing would create a hardship, but where average spacing of driveways within 300 feet of the subject property could be maintained at 200 feet, a minimum spacing of 150 feet would be permissible. Where such spacing cannot be readily achieved within a particular parcel, joint access with an adjoining property should be sought. If joint access is not possible, and access cannot be provided via another street, driveway access to the arterial may be granted if minimum corner clearances are met, and if left turns in and out are prohibited. For example, on the west side of Washington Street between Singing Palms Drive and Highland Palms Drive the existing residential serving driveways need to be consolidated by a frontage road. The subject frontage road would direct all residentially generated trips through a signalized intersec- tion at Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive. It is noted that the Highland Palms Drive provides a more prefer- able spacing between traffic signals (e.g., the Highway 1111 Washington Street signal) in comparison with Singing Palms Drive. The conceptual design of the frontage road intersection is illustrated in detail in Figure 13. As shown, minor acqui- sition of right of way will be required from two parcels on the west side of Washington Street. Noise barriers shall be installed where warranted along the entire length of Washington Street to ensure compliance with the La Quinta General Plan's adopted noise standards. Priority shall be given to alleviating the noise problems for existing developments currently severely impacted by traffic noise. Based upon an acoustical study to be prepared by the City, the design of noise barriers shall be incorporated into the Washington Street parkway standards. New developments shall install noise barriers in accordance with the City's approved plan. -43- i I i I I I I I I I I I I d-Qms existing curb r� 1 S I I N I I I i sotto scale I l I I I I J W cc U. 6 -PHASE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FRONTAGE ROAD INTERSECTION Figure 13 REVISED -44- FUTURE STREET N f visioN' - -IA s arwrrw ww..+ .. N f visioN' A f f f R f N C f S ••+••• INTER%Ci10N OETAII $ MGM ►AIMS CMM RUAMD UltI M C ►IAN CITY 0F LA 0 U I N T A yri f ♦- Pont 4m f E �� R aw2.www f-► _ •� f ww.r.� slop —'i WOWtp WASHWTON STREET A f f f R f N C f S ••+••• INTER%Ci10N OETAII $ MGM ►AIMS CMM RUAMD UltI M C ►IAN CITY 0F LA 0 U I N T A yri i.w a.r or - - .___� _._ rrt r a •e rise•as •[�Y�[■i[s �._ .� suit AM / [�4�YIr1•_ i.[7 •f •• Goias• IR (110,14141 1 The 18 mitigation measures recommended for implementation in the Washington Street corridor exceed thirty three million dollars in estimated construction costs. No consideration was made for inflation, right-of-way acquisition, engineer- ing, administrative, or contingency costs. It is important to note, however, that 25 percent of the estimated construction costs involve utilities; and that another 25 percent are for build out of Washington Street between I-10 and Fred Waring Drive, which is outside of the City of La Quinta sphere of influence. Thus the total construction cost estimate for Washington Street corridor circulation and landscape projects within the City and it's sphere of influence is $16,600,000 (sixteen million, six hundred thousand dollars). The City of La Quinta has adopted an infrastructure fee program to fund public buildings and facilities. Public facilities include bridges, major thoroughfares, and traffic signals. Utilities are not included in the infrastructure fee program. An estimate of annual infrastructure fees was developed on the basis of $4,000 collected per acre of new commercial development, $2,000 collected per new dwelling unit, and the assumption that new development would occur evenly over each of the next 10 years. An annual revenue of $1,482,000 (rounded) was forecasted (i.e., 235 acres of commercial development x $4,000, divided by 10 years equals $94,000; 6,941 dwellings x $2,000, divided by 10 years equals $1,388,200; for a total of $1,482,200 per year). The above -forecasted infrastructure fees are graphically depicted in Figure 14, together with amounts of City funds made available for street purposes during the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1984. In total, $1,540,000 (one million five hundred forty thousand dollars - rounded) per year is pro- jected to be made available for Citywide public buildings and circulation infrastructure needs. If all the identified funds were expended on the $16,600,000 circulation and land- scaping mitigation projects recommended along Washington Street within the City of La Quinta and it's sphere area, it years would be needed for implementation. However, other sources of funds are available for use within the Washington Street corridor. Potential funding sources include State of California Hazard Elimination Safety and Office of Traffic Safety grants, Federal Aide Secondary funds, Gas Tax increases, Special Assessment Districts, and/or an increase in the City's Infrastructure Fees. These potential sources are individually addressed and related to the priority listed mitigation measures in the following subsections of this report. -45- ANNUAL 1500000 1200000 C/') ry 900000 0 0 LO 600000 T- 300000 If INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS W w z � x m Of LL -Q z Q U am � w a z w cr) A AR a i -M-NA Ivry S Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) grants are administered by Caltrans to provide maximum 90 percent reimbursement funding to implement of qualifying accident reduction projects. This program is reactive in nature, with an existing high accident location required to be evidenced, and a mitigation project developed within identified funding and environ- mental constraints. In Fiscal Year 1985-86, HES funding was obtained for implementation of $40,000 in spot widening at the Washington Street intersection with Avenue 50. In view of the accident reduction anticipated to result from the spot widening, it was priority listed second among the recommended mitigation measures. Intersection safety lighting, although not a part of the approved HES project, is also recommended for instal- lation at the time of the subject project implementation. It is recommended that traffic accidents be monitored along the Washington Street corridor on an on-going basis - with the use of MicroSafety software provided with this report - and that HES applications be submitted annually for potentially qualifying projects. QFFICE QF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT$ The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) is responsible for the administration of the California Traffic Safety Program. It's primary functions include assisting local agencies in identifying traffic safety needs and deficiencies; coordinating ongoing traffic safety programs; and assisting local agencies in developing and implementing traffic safety projects. one hundred percent OTS funding may be obtained to establish a program for identifying high accident locations and for maintaining surveillance of those locations (e.g., for use in HES application determination); and/or a program for identifying traffic control device (e.g., signing, striping, signals) needs and deficiencies. Programs may be for specific corridors, or Citywide. It is recommended that OTS applications be submitted for Citywide accident surveillance and traffic control device inventory programs. The latter may be employed to develop a traffic control device maintenance system and cost controls. FEDERAL AIDE URBAN15UQNDARY $Ya M Federal Aide Urban (FAU) and Federal Aide Secondary (FAS) funds represent the principal Federal contribution to local systems. FAU funds are apportioned to states for urbanized and other State designated "urban" areas; and FAS funds are apportioned for non -urban areas. -47- Apportionments are on the basis of population, and are adjusted only after each Federal Census. On the basis of population data collected in the 1980 Census, Washington Street was placed on the FAS system. The Riverside County Transportation Commission considers projects for FAS funding on a competitive basis in January of each year. Selected projects are programmed into the Transportation Improvement Program for implementation within a five year period. The number of projects approved depends upon the amount of Federal funds made available each year. It is recommended that the City of La Quinta apply for FAS funding for Priority Project numbers 3, 41 81 91 12, and 15; and encourage the County of Riverside to apply for FAS funding of Priority Project number 17. Further, Caltrans receives FAS funds and programs them into improvements on State Highways. It is recommended that Cal- trans District it be contacted regarding their participation in improvements at the State Highway 111/Washington Street intersection. (Priority Project number 3). �As TAXES Gas tax apportionments are made available for local juris- dictions through the Street and Highway Code sections 2106, 2107, and 2107.5. The subject apportionments totaled $109,100 in Fiscal Year 1983-84, and are projected to increase by approximately 25 percent in Fiscal Year 1986-87 (to $135,000); with a further increase of 75 percent made available for each subsequent Fiscal Year (to $190,000). It should be noted that gas tax revenues are subject to change. SPECIAL AssESsMENT_DISTRICTS Special assessments levy special charges on properties in designated areas that benefit directly from a specific public improvement. They must be approved by two-thirds of the affected community property owners. Special assessment bonds have traditionally been used to finance the improvement, with the income from the assessment district pledged as security. When the bonds are retired, the additional assessment is removed. The assessment can be based on front footage, lot area, or a combination of factors. It can be levied on all existing uses and future uses or only on new uses. Establishment of an assessment district involves the defini- tion of the boundary of affected properties; the description of the improvements to be made and the improvement costs; and the assessment amounts and method of calculation. These items are usually covered in an "Engineer's Report'. Special assessment districts are suggested for evaluation in implementing all utility projects within the Washington Street corridor. These include Priority Project numbers 5, -48- 61 7,•11 and 14. In addition, special assessment may be explored as a means of maintaining residential neighborhood integrity for Priority Project numbers 4 and 8. NF ASTRU,CTUR� FEES AND DLVEL4PER CONQITL A wide variety of local development fees have been used to pay for public investments, including capital improvements for local streets and roads. Fees may be levied on a square footage basis or divided proportionately among all benefici- aries (e.g., total costs divided by total forecasted daily trip ends generated by new development and assigned onto Washington Street). For administrative ease, development fees may be collected when building permits are issued. The City may consider increasing the current infrastructure fees in view of the recommended expenditures along the Washington Street corridor, or the City may consider creating a separate fee program for the Washington Street Corridor. In addition, private developers may be required to participate directly in the construction and maintenance of local improvements (e.g., as a condition of approval) - both adjacent to their proposed development parcel and off-site where improvements are necessary to maintain the General Plan adopted level of service (e.g., LOS C). The City may require developers to participate in the implementation funding of specific projects if the proposed development would precede the City programmed mitigation project. It is recommended that conditions of development be employed to implement sidewalk installations in Priority Project numbers 10, 13, 16, and 17. However, such construction must be coordinated with the installation of utilities to avoid potential conflicts. M I SCE L L A NEOIJ_E QNQ Miscellaneous City of La Quinta funds employed for street purposes in the last Fiscal Year included approximately $10,500 in revenues derived from use of gas tax monies; $5,800 in General Fund monies; and $38,650 derived from Public Utilities Code Sections 9924 and 99400(A). Nationwide, most local jurisdictions depend primarily on general fund revenue sources to pay for local street programs. Local highway programs must compete with all other local programs for their appropriations from the general fund. However, in some cities, specific tax revenues are earmarked for streets and highways. other sources of funds are available on a competitive basis, such as bridge improvement funds from Caltrans, and mainten- ance funds from the State. It is recommended that the City aggressively pursue all such potential funding sources. -49- APPENDIX A ESTIMATED RIGHT -OF -NAY ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS ASSESSORS PARCEL ZONING Iq. DESIG. South of SR 111 i East of Washington: 200 617-02-24 C -P -S 617-02-25 C -P -S South of Sison Drive i East of Washington: 120 617-02-13 1-1 617-02-11 R-1 617-07-05 MIXED USE 617-07-06 MIXED USE 617-07-20 MIXED USE 617-07-21 MIXED USE South of 48TH i East of Washington: 330 617-283-12 R-2 617-283-13 1-2 617-283-11 R-2 611-283-14 R-2 South of Eisenhower i East of Washington: 33S 617-283-04 R-2 617-31-23 (Entire Parcel) A-3 617-68-01 (Entire Parcel) R-3 617-32-17 R-3 617-32-18 R-3 South of Sagebrush i East of Washington: 35 617-381-01 R-1 617-381-02 R-1 617-381-49 R-1 617-381-50 R-1 South of Bottle Brush i East of Washington: 55 617-382-01 R-1 617-382-02 R-1 617-382-49 R-1 617-382-50 R-1 South of Saguaro i East of Washington: 55 617-383-01 0-1 617-383-02 R-1 617-37-03 R-1 South of 50TH t East of Washington: 657 769-04-16 R-1 769-04-13 R-1 769-04-17 R-1 769-04-20 1-1 769-04-05 R-1 769-04-19 R-1 South of Avenido Ultito i East of Washington: UNK 769-061-01 R -I 769-061-07 R-1 South of Avenida Tujunga i East of Washington: 769-063-01 R-1 769-063-02 R -I 769-071-01 R-1 LINEAR ULTIMATE EXISTING TOTAL FRONTAGE 1/2 WIDTH 1/2 WIDTH SO FT R/W ESTIMATED 1 ViST (FEET) FROM C/L R/W ACQUISITION (110 PER SQ/FTI 300 85 30 16,500 1165,000 200 85 30 11,000 1110,000 200 120 30 18,000 1180,000 1,816 120 30 163,440 11,634,400 30 120 30 2,700 127,000 330 110 30 26,400 1264,000 660 110 30 52,800 1528,000 33S 110 35 25,125 1251,250 650 110 35 48,750 1487,500 650 65 35 19,500 1195,000 550 65 55 5,500 155,000 80 65 55 800 18,000 500 65 55 5,000 150,000 ISO 65 55 11500 115,000 716 30 0 21,480 1214,800 657 N/A N/A UNK UNK 917 N/A N/A UNK UNA 0 UNK 0 uMK UNK 380 UNK 0 UNK UNK 55 70 60 550 15,500 55 70 60 5SO 15,500 55 70 60 550 $5,500 55 70 60 550 15,500 45 70 60 450 14,500 SO 70 60 SOO 15,000 SO 70 60 500 15,000 45 70 60 450 141500 45 70 60 450 14,500 50 70 60 S00 15,000 600 70 60 6,000 160,000 629 40 30 6,290 162,900 200 40 30 2,000 120,000 216 40 30 2,160 121,600 120 40 30 11200 112,000 100 40 30 1,000 110,000 30 40 30 300 13,000 140 40 30 11400 114,000 139 40 30 1,390 113,900 90 40 30 900 19,000 100 40 30 1,000 110,000 70 40 30 700 17,000 South of Calle Palosa S. t East of Washington: 769-072-01 R-1 103 40 30 1,030 110,300 769-072-06 R-1 128 40 30 11280 112,800 South of Calle Obispo N. i East of Washington: 769-073-01 R -i 175 40 30 11750 117,500 769-073-02 R-1 39 40 30 390 13,900 South of Avenida Taepico t East of Washington: 769-131-01 R-1 39 40 30 390 13,900 769-131-02 R-1 160 40 30 1,600 116,000 South of Calle Obispo S. t East of Washington: 769-132-05 R-1 128 40 30 1,280 112,800 769-132-10 R-1 100 40 30 11000 1101000 South of Avenida La Fonda c East of Washington: 769-141-01 R-1 90 40 30 900 19,000 769-141-02 R-1 95 40 30 950 19,500 769-141-03 R-1 95 40 30 950 19,500 769-141-04 R-1 95 40 30 950 191500 769-141-05 R-1 95 40 30 950 19,500 769-141-06 R-1 90 40 30 900 19,000 South of Avenida Nuestra t East of Washington: 769-17-01 R-2-20000 527 40 30 5,270 152,700 South of Highland Palrs Dr. t West of Washington: 617-07-25 R-1 50 55 30 1,250 112,500 617-07-26 R-1 610 55 30 15,250 1152,500 South of 50th t West of Washington: 769-021-13 R-2-8000 206 80 30 10,300 11071,000 769-021-30 R-2-8000 151 80 30 7,550 175,500 769-021-26 (Entire Parcel) R-2-8000 N/A N/A N/A 2,178 121,780 769-03-33 R-2-4000 25 80 30 1,250 112,500 769-03-32 R-2-4000 889 80 30 44,450 1444,500 769-03-07 R-2-4000 320 80 30 16,000 1160,000 South of Calle Tarpico t West of Washington: 769-09-01 R-2-4000 540 80 30 27,000 1270,000 South of Avenida La Fonda t West of Washington: 769-117-01 R-1 50 80 30 2,500 125,000 769-117-02 R-1 60 80 30 3,000 130,000 769-117-03 R-1 60 80 30 31000 130,000 769-117-04 R-1 60 80 30 3,000 130,000 769-117-05 R-1 60 80 30 3,000 130,000 769-117-06 R-1 60 80 30 3,000 130,000 769-117-07 R-1 60 80 30 3,000 130,000 769-117-08 R-1 60 80 30 3,000 130,000 769-117-09 R-1 60 80 30 3,000 130,000 769-117-10 R-1 50 80 30 2,500 125,000 South of Avenida Nuestra t West of Washington: 769-16-04 R-2-20000 528 80 30 26,400 1264,000 TOTALS 763,574 17,635,740 APPBNDII B SR 111/WASHINGTON STREET CRITICAL MOVEMENT ANALYSIS EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE WASHINGTON STREET/HIGHWAY 111 CRITICAL MOVEMENT ANALYSIS Cc&:WASHEI ----------------------------------------------------- Run Date: 4/11/85 Application: SIGNALUED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS I DESIGN Data Input BY J. lower Street No. 1 (APPROACHES I i 2): HIGHWAY 111 Street No. 2 (APPROACHES 3 1 4): WASHINGTON STREET S/1(3) Location: CITY OF LA OUINTA Probles Staterent: CALCULATE EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE E/1(1)-- V/8(2) r Design Hour: 4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM N/8(4) ##ttttrttt **M$ttuuttttuttt#t#t##t##tttut:tttttttt:tttttu:ut:u#tfutttt:#ttfttr:utttut:#:ttt CALCULATE PERIOD VOLUMES (Passenger Cars/Hour): HOURLY OPPOSE TRUCI LOCAL PASS. CAR PERIOD APPROACH DIRECTION MOVEMENT PHASE VOLUME VOLUME (1) BUS/HR VOLUME PHF VOLUME I EASTBOUND LEFT 82 77 535 5.6 0 81 .86 95 THROUGH AIT 489 N/A 5.6 2 524 .86 610 RIGHT AIR 260 N/A 5.6 0 275 .86 319 2 WESTBOUND LEFT 81 63 749 5.6 0 67 .87 76 THROUGH A21 466 N/A 5.6 2 500 .87 575 RIGHT A2R 69 N/A 5.6 0 73 .87 84 3 SOUTHBOUND LEFT B4 SO 207 5.6 0 53 .82 64 THROUGH A3T 206 N/A 5.6 1 222 .82 270 RIGHT A3R 30 N/A 5.6 0 32 .82 39 d NORTHBOUND LEFT B3 165 236 5.6 0 174 .9: 183 THROUGH A4T 192 N/A 5.6 1 207 .95 218 RIGHT A4R 15 N/A 5.6 0 16 .95 17 rt:rtttttttrtsttrr:ttttrrttrtttttttttttrrttt#tttttrtrttttttttrtt:rrttrtrttttrtrsrttttttttttrrr:trrrtrrr ADJUST VOLUMES FOR TURN M.'VEMENTS, PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY, LANE UTILIZATION, L LANE WIDTH: SEPARATE PED/ TURN EFFECT. UTII. WIDTH ADJUST. NO. VOL.jME; APPROACH MOVEMENT PHASE? LANE? HOUR FACTOR VOLUME ADJ. ADJ. VOLUME LANES LANE 1 LEFT YES YES C 99 1.05 99 1,00 1.00 99 1 99 THROUGH YES YES t 99 1.00 610 1.05 1.00 959 2 480 RIGHT YES NO t 99 1.00 319 1.00 1.00 2 LEFT YES YES Z 99 1.05 80 1.00 1.00 80 1 80 THROUGH YES YES C 99 1.00 575 1.05 1.00 604 2 302 RIGHT YES YES ( 99 1.00 84 1.00 1.00 84 1 84 3 LEFT YES YES S 99 1.05 68 1.00 1.00 68 1 68 THROUGH YES YES f 99 1.00 270 1.00 1.00 270 1 270 RIGHT YES YES i 99 1.00 39 1.00 1.00 39 1 39 4 LEFT YES YES [ 99 1.05 193 1.00 1.00 193 1 193 THROUGH YES YES 4 99 1.00 218 ].DO 1.00 218 1 218 RIGHT YES YES t 99 1.00 17 1.00 1.00 17 1 17 f###:#:t#ttttt#ttt#a:tt:tttft#:t#tff###t#:u#t:#:tt:t#:t:ttt#::t#tu:f:tr#:t:tttttuf::tt#:###:ttt##:# DESIGNATE PROBABLE PHASING L ADJUST FOR OVERLAP: # NUMBER OF PHASES: 5 PROBABLE POSSIBLE ADJ. CRIT. tt#t#fttstttttttttt#tttitstttttttttttt PHASING CRIT. VOL. CARRYOVER VOLUME VOLUME t CRITICAL VOLUME SUMMATION: 1270 -------- ---------- ---------------- ---------- # -- B2Al 480 (Al) 480 OR 99 = 480 480 # B1A2 302 420 302 - 80 = 302 302 B03 270 WT) 270 OR 68 = 270 270 f LEVEL OF SERVICE: C 83A4 218 (A4T) 218 OR 193 = 218 218 f ------ t#ft##ttfftt##t#tt##ttittttftttttttttf f RECALCULATE? ####::#########:t::##tt:tttftftt:tt:ttftt#tt#tttu:#tttuttt#uu:t:#t:tttfttt:tttt#f#####::u::tttt#:: PROJECTED LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR WASHINGTON STREET/HIGHWAY 111 C R I T I C A L M O V E M E N T A N A L Y S I S Code: W A S H M O D ----------------------- ----------------------------- Run Date: 4/11185 Application: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS 9 DESIGN Data Input BY J. Lower Street No. 1 (APPROACHES 1 1 2): HIGHWAY III Street No. 2 (APPROACHES 3 1 4): WASHINGTON STREET S/B(3) Location: CITY OF LA OUINTA Probles Staterent: CALCULATE PROJECTED LEVEL OF SERVICE - EXISTING VOLUMES WITH E/W LEFT TURN PHASE Design Hour: 4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM N/8(4) aaaaraa##arra#a#rataaaaar#araaaratraa#rarrrarra#at##:#at#:rr:art#ra:sass:#r#ra#satrrrraat:truaaartara CALCULATE PERIOD VOLUMES (Passenger Cars/Hour): HOURLY OPPOSE TRUCK LOCAL PASS. CAR PERIOD APPROACH DIRECTION MOVEMENT PHASE VOLUME VOLUME (1) BUS/HR VOLUME PHF VOLUME I EASTBOUND LEFT 82 77 535 5.6 0 81 .86 95 THROUGH AIT 489 N/A 5.6 2 524 .86 610 RIGHT AIR 260 N/A 5.6 0 275 .86 319 2 WESTBOUND LEFT B1 63 749 5.6 0 67 .87 76 THROUGH A2T 466 N/A 5.6 2 S00 .87 575 RIGHT A2R 69 N/A 5.6 0 73 .87 84 3 SOUTHBOUND LEFT 84 50 207 5.6 0 53 .82 64 THROUGH A3T 206 N/A 5.6 1 222 .82 270 RIGHT A3R 30 N/A 5.6 0 32 .82 39 4 NORTHBOUND LEFT B3 165 236 5.6 0 174 .91. 183 THROUGH A41 192 N/A 5.6 1 207 .95 218 RIGHT A4R 15 N/A 5.6 0 16 .95 17 rr:rrrarrtar:ta:asattr:aarrattrrrtaaarraaarrrarrrrra:rrrartrraa:a:rarrrrrraraaurrataaatara�i�ir�rri�tr ADJUST VOLUMES FOR TURN MOVEMENTS, PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY, LANE UTILIZATION, E LANE WIDTH: SEPARATE PED/ TURN EFFECT. UTIL. WIDTH ADJUST, K. VOL' -ME APPROACH MOVEMENT PHASE? LANE? HOUR FACTOR VOLUME ADJ. ADJ. VOLUME LANE: LANE 1 LEFT YES YES ( 99 1.05 99 1.00 1.00 99 1 99 THROUGH YES YES ( 99 i.DO 610 1.05 1.00 959 2 480 + RIGHT YES NO ( 99 1.00 319 1.00 1.00 2 LEFT YES YES ( 99 1.05 80 1.00 1.00 80 1 80 THROUGH YES YES ( 99 1.00 575 1.05 1.00 604 2 302 RIGHT YES YES ( 99 1.00 84 1.00 1.00 84 1 84 3 LEFT YES YES ( 99 1.05 68 1.00 1.00 68 1 68 THROUGH YES YES ( 99 1.00 270 1.00 1.00 270 1 270 RIGHT YES YES ( 99 1.00 39 1.00 1.00 39 1 39 4 LEFT YES YES ( 99 1.05 193 1.00 1.00 193 1 193 THROUGH YES YES ( 99 1.00 218 1.00 1.00 218 1 218 RIGHT YES YES ( 99 1.00 17 1.00 1.00 17 1 17 atria#:ata:uatatatttttt#tttatattt###aa:#tat:rr#rr##r#aaaaa####t#ttt:aar###tat:u#:aa::uaaru#:u#rra# DESIGNATE PROBABLE PHASING i ADJUST FOR OVERLAP: a NUMBER OF PHASES: 6 PROBABLE POSSIBLE ADJ. CRIT. rtaaa:a###ra#rraars:ta#rata:::##:rasa: PHASING CRIT. VOL. CARRYOVER VOLUME VOLUME t CRITICAL VOLUME SUMMATI6 1048 -- - - - - ------ - - - - ------------ - - - - ------- -- - - -- # ----- B1B2 80 01) 99 - 80 = 19 80 t 52A1 19 (82) 480 - 19 = 461 19 a:tart#thataa#atttt::##attura:uaatt AIA2 461 (AZT) 461 OR 302 : 461 461 # LEVEL OF SERVICE: 1+ 84A3 270 WT) 270 OR 68 = 270 270 t ----+ B30 218 (A4T) 218 OR 193 - 218 218 ra#atttt######�asattaaaa##aur##:r#art # RECALCULATE? t#r###t#aatta#t#t#t###a:t#aaatt##at#ar:atr#r#a::tataatt#ttttartaa#r#tar:tataaa#tt:t:#t#ttaaaurar#:#:## C I T Y O F L A 0 U I N T A M I D B L 0 C K A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 2 LOCATION WASHINGTON STREET SEGMENT 52ND AVENUE/EISENHOWER DRIVE LENGTH (MILES) 3.470 CLASSIFICATION MR,CR AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 4,300 SPEED LIMIT (MILES PER HOUR) ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT : MILLION VEHICLE MILES = ADT( 4,300)xLENGTH( 3.470)x365/1000000 = 5.45 *##** A C C I D E N T F R E 0 U E N C Y *#*** TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PBD/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER REMARKS 81-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 INJURY 83-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 84-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 1.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 /3.00 YEARS ***** A C C I D E N T R A T E ***** AVERAGE 0.18 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 RATE BY TYPE APPENDIX -C WASHINGTON STREET ACCIDENT ANALYSIS C I T Y O F L A 0 U I N T A M I D B L 0 C H A C C I D B N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 3 LOCATION WASHINGTON STREET SEGMENT EISENHOWER DRIVE/ROUTE 111 LENGTH (MILES) : 2.700 CLASSIFICATION : MR,CR AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 7,900 SPEED LIMIT (MILES PER HOUR) ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT : MILLION VEHICLE MILES = ADT( 7,900)xLENGTR( 2.700)x365/1000000 = 7.79 AVERAGE 0.34 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 RATE BY TYPE ***** A C C I D E N T F R E Q U E N C Y ****# TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER REMARKS 81-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 83-4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 84-1 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 INJURY 84-2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 INJURY 84-3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 2.67 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 /3.00 YEARS ***** A C C I D E N T R A T E ***** AVERAGE 0.34 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 RATE BY TYPE 4 4 * 4 k 4:104 4 * * * 4 y * :k 4: * *' 4:* * * * * 4:4 4 4 4 4 4. } 4: *: 'i::i :4::4 * 4 4 4' 4 4 * * * 4' *: * * * 4 * * 4, *:4:-4: * * y 4 4: 4 4 4 V 4 4 4 4 4 C I T Y O F L A « U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I O N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 12 STREET 1 : WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 : 52ND AVENUE CLASSIFICATION : ARTERIAL,ARTERIAL DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 3,500 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( .3,500)x36,5/1000000 = 1.23 4: y y } :}: #: #::y :}::}::y::y::# *::y:}: }: y:} •} # 4 '4: 4: }::y::}: # :# :4::} :y 'k 4 :4 :# :4: * .4 4 t * *::* :}: * * :y::#: #::y::#. •y *4 :y.:#::4 4: # 4 4 4 k 4 4 AVERAGE 0.52 0.0.0 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 RATE BY TYPE :y::y.*:*::4::y::4 *::4:*4:***************:*:*:*:*:***::**:M*:*:*:*: y:* :*:*:4:4:**::}:* *:*:*:*:*:}: 4::4:*::4:.4 * 4::}::4::y..#::4:* y 4 4 4 A C C I D E N T F R E Q U E N C Y T(:,TAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC_ ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER REMARKS 1-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8'2-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '=';'-3 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 _'2-4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 INJUR'r 83-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :33-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S4-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,34-2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 INJURY 84-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 /3.00 YEARS *:**** A C C I D E N T R A T E **:*** AVERAGE 0.52 0.0.0 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 RATE BY TYPE :y::y.*:*::4::y::4 *::4:*4:***************:*:*:*:*:***::**:M*:*:*:*: y:* :*:*:4:4:**::}:* *:*:*:*:*:}: 4::4:*::4:.4 * 4::}::4::y..#::4:* y 4 4 4 4*4 *:f4�*-4:4:*:#v*#:**4 f t f:***44**04,***4:*,#:*:4:-4****4***44****4**v^+*44 CITY UF LA o U I N T A INTERSECT%UN A CCI[)ENT ANALYSI5 LOCATION NUMBER : 13 STREET l : WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 : AVENIDA NUE5TRA CLASSIFICATION : MAJ0R,C0LLECT0R DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 4,500 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES DEV( 4,500)x365/1000000 1'64 :4****�4 +:** **:#::f +::4:* 1*******»4*^� �**�* A C C I D E N T F R E 0 U E N C Y ***** T0T4L RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC' ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH' OTHER REMARKS' 81-4 O O O O U O O 82-1 O O O O O O O 83-2 O O O O O O U 83-3 O O 0 O O O O 82-4 O O O O O O U 83-1 U U O O O O O 83-2 O O O O O O O 2--30 O O O O O O 83-4 O O O O O O O 84-1 O O O O O O O 84-2 O O O O O O O 84-3 O O O U O O O ---- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ------ ----- ------- YR AVER O'OO O'OO O'OO 0'00 O'OO O'OO 0'00 /3'00 YEARS **:*** A C C I D E N T R A T E ***** AVERAGE 0'0[] [)'OO 0'00 0'00 8'0[] 0'0[] O'OO RATE BY TYPE *����**:t.:****�**:t:ic***********�**:**,.*:***�4:**4:# ^^*� **44:4444:4=44:444#*4*4:4444:4:44::44:4444:**4444.44444144441:4:4+1+:4:4:`#44:4.4 t#4t##44444#4+ C I T Y O F L A () U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I i) N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 14 STREET 1 : WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 : CALLE PALOMA CLASSIFICATION : ARTERIAL, LOCAL DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 4,450 MILLIc.iN ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 4,450)x365/1000000 = 1.6.2 :4 4 4 * :4::4:'4 4 4: 4 :#: ;::#::;: #::y :;: *:+::#!:4::4: }::;::;::;..}::#::# 4 * 4: * y. 4 4 # :t #::4::k :k 4 4 t * :#: y :+ :;::;: 4: }::y::;: * :4: #::4::4 4 4 4: 4::4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 * #::#: #::+: * * * * *.,#: *:.J: *: *:+-. 4: #:'#: f� * *:#:.4: # * # :k :y :}: #c *: 4:1 4: * } }::y: *: *:.J: * *: * :+::4::4::#::4 1 4 4::#::4::4::4..4::4 4 # 4 4 ***** A C C I D E N T F R E 0 U E N C Y TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER REMARKS 1-4 0 U 0 0 0 0 •0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::2-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C;3-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-2 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 83-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �3-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 /3.00 YEARS . **:.i:** A C C I D E N T R A T E :***** AVERAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RATE BY TYPE * #::#: #::+: * * * * *.,#: *:.J: *: *:+-. 4: #:'#: f� * *:#:.4: # * # :k :y :}: #c *: 4:1 4: * } }::y: *: *:.J: * *: * :+::4::4::#::4 1 4 4::#::4::4::4..4::4 4 # 4 4 444401it r4/Y11 C I T Y O F L A 1] U I N T A 7 N T E R S E C T I 0 N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 15 STREET 1 : WASHINGTON STREET STREET CALLE OBISPO CLASSIFICATION : ARTERIAL,LOCAL DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 4,500 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 4,500)x365/1000000 = 1.64 if:*** A C C I D E N T F R E Q U E N C Y TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR AC(:_ ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER REMARK`; 81-4 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 '_"2-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82-3 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 82-4 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 33-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :33-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 INJURY 64-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 0.333 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 /3.00 YEARS **-*** A C C I D E N T R A T E ***** AVERAGE 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RATE BY TYPE #4441:4#:*4**:44*::4*4:f44+'****Y**44***44+444#**4:*4**:*:*4. 44 * t * 4:4 t:# 0 # * * 4 4: 4 4 :4 0 # * 4 0 s C I T Y O F L A Q U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I0 N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 16 STREET 1 : WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 : CALLE TAMPICO CLASSIFICATION ARTERIAL, SECONDARY DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) 5,500 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 5,500)x3r'5/1000000 = 2.01 4::4::# :# :# :;.:;::; :} :4::4 4 4':4 :4::#::y::t:;::; :4:4:4 4:4:4 * :y::;::;..#. 4*:*::+::4 4:4::y::Y:4: #:4 *::4*::y::#::4.:4:,4 :4:4:44::4..4. 4 :4 4'4 4 #:'4::#: 4 :4 :4 4 4 4 4 4 AVERAGE 1.16 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 RATE BY TYPE :4*::y::y::y::# :y:* i :+: +::k* 4:* k*4:*****:Y*** isy:** 4:**** is* *:***4:4:*V **,4:*:#,4::4:*..i,4:4_**:# *:#::# 4- 4 Y 4: # A C C I D E N T F R E 0 U E N C Y TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER REMARKS =,1-4 0 O O 0 0 0 0 02-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :2-2 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 =:2-4 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 _3-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;33-4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 S'4-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-2 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 INJURY 8-4-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 2.33 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 /3.00 YEARS *4:*** ACC I DENT R A T E ***** AVERAGE 1.16 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 RATE BY TYPE :4*::y::y::y::# :y:* i :+: +::k* 4:* k*4:*****:Y*** isy:** 4:**** is* *:***4:4:*V **,4:*:#,4::4:*..i,4:4_**:# *:#::# 4- 4 Y 4: # t.4:4 ## t*4:#*:t*t4**:*** :4 #:#:#::# 0:4::4:t**:4 4*#* t * # 4 4 t+'4:/*:* 4*:k* ++:*:t+:***t414 4// 1 4 4# I C I T Y O F L A 0 U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I 0 N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S Ll')CATI(►N NUMBER : 17 STREET 1 : WASHINGTC►N STREET STREET 2 : AVENIDA TUJUNGA CLASSIFICATION : MAJ()R,C(_)LLECTOR DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) 4,560 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 4,560)x36-9/1000000 = l.r,r 4 # * 4i C41 *::y: * * *4 t t t he a:#: ;::;::;: #::4::#::#::}::;::# :# y: a :y a 4 * +::4: 4 t 4:-4::#: i#::+: #::y::;: 4:.-4: ;::;::y: y::4::}::# :;::y ; r r 4 4: 4: # 4 # 4 r # # f A C C I D E N T F R E Q U E N C Y +* *' # TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER RE'4RK` .•1-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 2-2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?3-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E:4-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 /3.00 YEARS *:4:*:** A C C I D E N T R A T E *:*:*** AVERAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RATE BY TYPE **4:****.4:A:*:Y:*:*:*:**:#::#: 4:4.:4:#:*f: isV:**J.:�j wi, t 4:*::} 4:**4:***#:*****:+ * * * 4i * * 4::#:* + f t t 4 4 4 4* t :t 4 .4 4 k* t 4 1* 4: }: #::4::4::t,# :t t t t 4 t ti 4 4 4 4: V' 4! 4 4:4 4 4 4* 4 4* 4 4 4:* 4** 4 4 t 4 t* 4 4 •1' 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4. 4« L I T Y O F L A Q U I N T A I N T E R S E C T Il') N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 18 STREET 1 WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 AVENIDA ULTIMO:) CLASSIFICATION : MAJI)R,COLLECTOR DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 4,5.1-0 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 4,56.0)x365/1000000 = 1. 6- * 4 4t :;: a :4..}::;: h: ; :} :4::y::4 4::y: * *::i::4::4: t :;::#::t * 4 4: # 4::#::# :;::# :;::#::;::4::#: 4::4 4 #::4 t Jr. A a :y: y::#::#: a ;::#::#::# :#::#::y::# #' # « 4 :4: # 4 # Y • r 4 ACCI DENT F R E (� U E N C Y TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER REMAPK°'i 21-4 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 =2-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !2-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =2-, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;:"2-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =;3-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '3-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .34-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 /3.00 YEARS *4:*** A C C I D E N T R A T E **:**:* AVERAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RATE BY TYPE #:A:*�k�k�kY-:k'k:y::y::y..y:•;::k:k k�k��A'A'�-k�i'�I k:!':y::k.r.y..y::y:�:;y::;..r�k k'ky:�i:�:'k:y: y::;:y:»::;::i_'i' Yyk Y k�l'#�##XA-1':i::i y# i � f CITY I.i F LA a U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I O N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S is LOCATION NUMBER : 113 STREET 1 : WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 : 50TH AVENUE CLASSIFICATION : ARTERIAL, MAJOR DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 6,700 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 6,700)x35/1000000 = 2.45 :k ya::y:y::y::y :# #::y: y :;::y i :#::k:t :i Y **:*:k 4, :i::y:y:y::y::y::# :i i *:t.*4::y::t'*** 'X:i::i':y::# :+ A C C I D E N T F R E () U E N C Y:*X* TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANI3LE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER RE".ARKS 1-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G2-1 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 �2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 ;D.3-1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TSJURY ;3-2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 INJURY 83-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 84-1 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 INJURY 84-2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 INJURY 64-3 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 INJURY YR AVER 4.6.7 2.67 1.333 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 /3.00 YEARS ***** A C C I D E N T R A T E ***** AVERAGE 1.91 1.09 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 RATE BY TYPE 44444/k•4:*4:444*4:*4::1:*:*:V4:444:4:4:4:44:4:44444:444444*4444*#'4:4:4:4: 4:4:k:k'4*4444*4444 f44v44 C I T Y ti F L A Q U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I 0 N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 20 STREET 1 : WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 : PADRE DRIVE CLASSIFICATI(=)N : MAJOR, COLLECTOR DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 4,700 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 4,700)x365/1000000 = 1.72 :4:*4:4:4:1:4:4::4::44::4:4:4::4:1::4:44::}::4::4::4::4::4:4:4:4:4:4::4#:'#:4:'i4::4:4:4:4"4:4:4:*4*:4::4:*:*:4::4::4::4::4::4::4"4::4:4::4:444444a4d:.�4 :4::k*4 4: }::1::4::x:4:4:4:**:***4'**** *:4c:i: 4::4:k:*: ** 4:*:4:*4:*::4::4::4 y 4:4:*:**::4:*:4:*4:*:*:4:**:4:4::4::4:* * #::4::4:4 4:4:4::4 . 4 4 A C C I D E N T F R E Q U E N C Y TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER REMARKS ;.•1-4 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-2 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 82-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,2-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;4-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 /3.00 YEARS :4=***:* A C C I D E N T R A T E **:*** AVERAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RATE BY TYPE :4::k*4 4: }::1::4::x:4:4:4:**:***4'**** *:4c:i: 4::4:k:*: ** 4:*:4:*4:*::4::4::4 y 4:4:*:**::4:*:4:*4:*:*:4:**:4:4::4::4:* * #::4::4:4 4:4:4::4 . 4 4 444:44*44:t:444t:4 't:#•tt4:4444***44444:**4+4f444t*#44tf0t44:4:#4ttt44:4t44#f 44 4 f 4#f # # C I T Y O F L A Q U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I (i N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 21 STREET 1 : WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 : EL HIJ(_( DRIVE CLASSIFICATION : MAJ(=)R,COLLECTOR DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 4,t,50 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 4,b50)x3f,5/1000000 = 1.70 4 y: y::4::#::#: y::+::4: * 4: * y :t :t #: 4::# 4: y::# :4 :y::# :; :;::4 :+: # t * 4: 4- 4 * 4::y::y :#::+: 4::+::4 * * t * 4 :t :4: * y::+::#: 4: #: #: # # r # # 4 AVERAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RATE BY TYPE *:*:*:t*::t4:4:*:4:***4:4:4:*:4: +:4:4::14:*4:**4::t*4-4:4 4::4::t***4: 4:*4:*4:*4:*4:**4:4:4:4::4::4: 4-4 t 4:f A C C I D E N T F R E o U E N C Y *4 t*:t TOTAL- RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER REMARK`: 0 0 0 0 0 0 :-12-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :"2-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '_"2-4 0 0 0 0 (3 0 0 1 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a4-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =:4-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 /3.00 YEARS 4:4:4:** A C C I D E N T R A T E *::#:*** AVERAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RATE BY TYPE *:*:*:t*::t4:4:*:4:***4:4:4:*:4: +:4:4::14:*4:**4::t*4-4:4 4::4::t***4: 4:*4:*4:*4:*4:**4:4:4:4::4::4: 4-4 t 4:f f: 4, 4* 4***444,4*4t0t44.4**4k****44:4***:#4**t**t*t444tx4*4*4,**4*w**t4,t#f##44tf4 C I T Y 1) F L A () U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I 1) N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 22 STREET 1 : WAS.HINGTON STREET STREET 2 : SAGUARO ROAD CLASSIFICATION : MAJi)R,COL LECT1)R DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 4,560 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 4,566)x365/1000000 = 1.66. 4::4:.4::4: *#: :+::+: {: *::# :y::{: *: {::#::#::#::#::4 :}::{::}: *::#::#::#::#: y::t * 4,:4:14: y::}::}::y: *::}::}: a * *::4: * * * * * t 4 :#: {::{::y::}: * * *: *: *: * * t 4 4 4 4' 4 4 # t 4 4 *:*:t*::#: * -.i:* k*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:**:* #::}::t # * * * * * * * ** * * 4 * * * *:*::44.*:*:*:*****i * t* 4::4:.**:4 # 4 4 *tt** ACC I DENT F R E 0 U E N C Y #** * TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER REMARK':) ...1-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '_"2--4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t;-)-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 /3.00 YEARS ***** A C C I D E N T R A T E **:**:* AVERAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RATE BY TYPE *:*:t*::#: * -.i:* k*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:**:* #::}::t # * * * * * * * ** * * 4 * * * *:*::44.*:*:*:*****i * t* 4::4:.**:4 # 4 4 t 4 4 4 i 4; A' 4/ X 4 4 4 k 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 o• 1 4 C I T Y o f L A () U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I 0 N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 23 STREET 1 : WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 : BOTTLE BRUSH DRIVE CLASSIFICATION : ARTERIAL, LOCAL DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 4,560 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 4,560)x365/1000000 = 1.66 4 4# 4' 4 'k # #::;..� #: ;::}::;::; v******** **4 * it 4 4 4 ***4 4 4:4:4 4 4 4 Y *:;::4: * 4 *4 *********4 4 4 k 4'i* # 4:4 x+ 4 AVERAGE 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 RATE BY TYPE :k #: �i::;::;::#• * �i� Y �4 '4 # #' �� �� A' * �4� #� �F� �� �4 � * * 4' �4� Y' W i �F:'Y 4 4� # �4� �# �4� * �1 '4 � + �4::{::;::}: y::+� 4 i #� �4 Y i # A� �4 '4 4 # 'i � # * 4 # 4 #. �4 + 1 r i #*:4:** A C C I D E N T F R E is U E N C Y TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANGLE ENI) TURN BIKE VEH . OTHER REMARK':; :D1-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .32-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '=2-2 (J 0 0 0 0 0 0 82-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :-:2-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S3-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 U _:3-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 INJURY 84-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 /3.00 YEARS ***** A C C I D E N T R A T E ***** AVERAGE 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 RATE BY TYPE :k #: �i::;::;::#• * �i� Y �4 '4 # #' �� �� A' * �4� #� �F� �� �4 � * * 4' �4� Y' W i �F:'Y 4 4� # �4� �# �4� * �1 '4 � + �4::{::;::}: y::+� 4 i #� �4 Y i # A� �4 '4 4 # 'i � # * 4 # 4 #. �4 + 1 r i t44:44Or*444444'4#444.:44444:4':44'444,44::4::4::4'.:4::444444'444444.*444X:y.4':4-i'4':444:444,*4444440441 C I T Y O F L A o U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I O N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S L(')CATI(.)N NUMBER : 24 STREET 1 : WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 : SAGEBRUSH AVENUE CLASSIFICATION : MAJOR, COLLECTOR DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 4,5r',0 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 4,960)x365/1000000 = l.66. 4::#::# :4::4: 4':4 4: 4'4 4 4 #::}::} :* **:4 4: r: :#::4::# * #::}::y::#::y:*: #:*:4::y :y::}::} 4: 4:4: 4: Y 4' #' 4: 4:4::#::y:# }:4::}:4::} y::#::4 4' 4 4 4 4::4 4 a 4 4 4 *4::4::4:4::#:4:4:* -4:4: 4:**:*:*4:4::#::4:*4:******:4:4::4:.4:*:*:*::1::#:4::y:* **::y:*:4 4:4:kx::4:x:*:4:**::}:4:*:*:*:*:4:**4:y:y:4::#::4 4 4 4' 4 A C C I D E N T F R E Q U E N C Y T(jTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR A ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. CITHER REMARK`:; 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 2-3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 '3-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _;3-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;4-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------ 0 ----- YR AVER 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---- 0.00 ---- 0.00 0.00 0.00 -------- /3.00 YEARS ***** A C C I D E N T R A T E ***** AVERAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RATE BY TYPE *4::4::4:4::#:4:4:* -4:4: 4:**:*:*4:4::#::4:*4:******:4:4::4:.4:*:*:*::1::#:4::y:* **::y:*:4 4:4:kx::4:x:*:4:**::}:4:*:*:*:*:4:**4:y:y:4::#::4 4 4 4' 4 -444444444V4***44rk444:44y4'4'4'**4.4i44#A44444444*4k/:4444k4**'**:4:144**4444444*44 C I T Y 1) F L A Q U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I O N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 25 STREET 1 WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 EISENHoWER DRIVE CLASSIFICATICM : ARTERIAL, MAJOR DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) 9,400 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 9,400)x31.5/1000000 = 3.43 #: #::}: 4::}::#::}::#: y::#::#::} :;::# :#::}: y *:# :#::4: }:.k :#::;::#::;::#: } :}::}::}: ::;::}::;: * }: * #::#::; :}: }: * * * 4::# t * y y 4::#:.4: 4 4 4 4 r 4 4 f'4::+: *::#: A C C I D E N T F R E Q U E N C Y 4:Y ry* TATAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER REMARKS c1-4 t) 0 0 0 0 (a 0 02-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :-:2-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 INJURY :D.2-4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 _3-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 U 0 E;3-3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 INJURY 83-4 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 84-1 4 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 INJURY 34-2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 INJURY 84-3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 5.00 1.67 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.00 2.00 /3.00 YEARS **i:** A C C I D E N T R A T E ***** AVERAGE 1.46 0.49 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.58 RATE BY TYPE #:r:Y:**'4:*:**'4:* : : : 4:�:**4:***-4:4::4:4:**-***-**:;4:.y::4 ***::4:x#::4::#:***:4:**** #:#::4::4::#::}::4:** k 4.4 4:4:'4A:A:A f 4-AACA* 4:M:.;.4::4::44'A"4'A':t/`i'"t':*:t:4:4:A4#A*44::4::4*A44A**A"4A4kIA4A4:AAA4tAi4444t44r41 C I T Y 1) F L A 1) U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I 0 N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LOCATION NUMBER : 2r_'. STREET 1 : WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 : HIGHLAND PALMS DRIVE CLASSIFICATION : ARTERIAL,LC►CAL DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 9,500 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 9,500)x365/1000000 = 3.47 # #::#:: y :* :* A :{ :y: 4 :y ;:#::4::;::y::{::{::y..y..#::{::{::y::#::{::;::{::}::}::;: #: 4 *{::y::;::y: {::;: }: }::;:.# :y: * :y::* {::;::{ A A: ;: A::{ :;::;::{::#: A: A * * A # Cf # 4 1 a a # # A: A C C I D E N T F R E 0 U E N C Y **A A: REMARK_)' /3.00 YEARS AVERAGE 0.19 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 RATE BY TYPE *::* *: * * A: A::* * :{::* A::{: A: A: A: A::{::;: A: A::;: {: {::;::;: * :* y::4: A::;: A::* :* A: A: A: A: * A: *::;::* * *: * * 4- :#- * {::y: A: A: A * R 4 # TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC;. ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH. OTHER 1-4 t.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 =2-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "2 -2, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::::2-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :--:3-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64-1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 84-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 0.6.7 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 :***:** A C C I D E N T R A T E *A:*** REMARK_)' /3.00 YEARS AVERAGE 0.19 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 RATE BY TYPE *::* *: * * A: A::* * :{::* A::{: A: A: A: A::{::;: A: A::;: {: {::;::;: * :* y::4: A::;: A::* :* A: A: A: A: * A: *::;::* * *: * * 4- :#- * {::y: A: A: A * R 4 # 4* 44#4#1444#444**444*4*f4#':4****4 *444Ct44:444**4:44***444**44'4tt 0441# 444404 C I T Y O F L A () U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I 0 N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y S I S LCA"ATION NUMBER : 27 STREET 1 : WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 : SIM(7N DRIVE/SINGING PALMS DRIVE CLASSIFICATION : ARTERIAL,Ci)Ll_ECTOR DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : '?,E,00 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV( 9,F -300)x365/1000000 = 3.5; #: 4:'4::+!:*- 4 4 4 4 :y:#::4::#::4::} C4'.:# y.'4 :#::#::#::#: #::# #::#::#: #::# *:4 *4 .# * 4..# *-# 4- t * 4— # 4 # 4 4 + t 4 4 4:*:******k:*:*:k4::**:4:*y:**::#:#::#::# 4:.4: *.J: *:#::+:.4: *:.J: *: is*:4:'4::#:V:*4::4:4 4 r Y:4::4: 4::4 #- 4 4 4 4 A C C I D E N T F R E 0 U E N C Y 4* 4*� TOTAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ PARKED YEAR ACC. ANGLE END TURN BIKE VEH_ OTHER REMARK':" 1- 4 0 0 0 0 0 (] 0 2-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ='2>-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::;2-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83-1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 83-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G3-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 84-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YR AVER 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 /3.00 YEARS ***** A C C I D E N T R A T E *4:*** AVERAGE 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RATE BY TYPE 4:*:******k:*:*:k4::**:4:*y:**::#:#::#::# 4:.4: *.J: *:#::+:.4: *:.J: *: is*:4:'4::#:V:*4::4:4 4 r Y:4::4: 4::4 #- 4 4 4 4 f: * 4 4:4 Y k 4 #: * 4::4 :#' #"# :#: #' # 4 4=:4 4 4 4 4 :4 :4 4 .4 4' 4 4 4# *4 4 4: 4 4 4# 4 4 1 4* 4: 4# 4 4 4 4 4** f 4- # 4 fi t 1 4# 4 4 4 f to e f C I T Y 1) F L A 1) U I N T A I N T E R S E C T I () N A C C I D E N T A N A L Y SI S LOCATION NUMBER : 2_; STREET 1 : WASHINGTON STREET STREET 2 : ROUTE 111 CLASSIFICATION : ARTERIAL, ARTERIAL DAILY ENTERING VEHICLES (DEV) : 24,500 MILLION ENTERING VEHICLES = DEV(24,500)x365/1000000 = 81.94 •}::#::{: +::k Y:4::# y k y :; :y: }::#::+: ::} :4: 44'# 4 #-.:4: :# 4 k 4 #: y }::#: + :; y: jr :#::4..~ #':k A # * t # # :+ 4 4: + f 4 f 4 A C C I D E N T F R E 0 U E N C Y k* +: ** YR AVER 7.00 1.33 4.00 0.33 0.00 ***** A C C I D E N T PARKED VEH. T(-)TAL RIGHT REAR LEFT PED/ YEAR ACC. ANGLE END TURN BIKE =:1-4 0 0 0 0 0 -'2-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =:2-3 2 1 1 0 0 ;..2-4 2 0 1 0 0 E;3-1 1 0 1 0 0 .3-2 3 0 2 O 0 3 0 0 O 0 0 83-4 5 1 2 1 0 84-1 6 0 5 0 0 84-2 1 1 0 0 0 84-3 1 1 0 0 0 YR AVER 7.00 1.33 4.00 0.33 0.00 ***** A C C I D E N T PARKED VEH. OTHER REMARKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 i,,JUR'r 0 1 1 gip. TURP 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 INJURY 0 0 0 0 0.00 1.33 /3.00 YEARS R A T E *****. AVERAGE 0.78 0.15 0.45 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.15 RATE BY TYPE *: A::#: Y: V: �: *: * * *::}: * *: * �::k * * * * �: * * * :k :;: �:'#: � �: *• :y::;::;::}::+: * * �: * :4: *'4:'4::4 * # * * *'F' #: * :4::#: y: �::* �: * * t t �: �y::} :y: �: �::# t t � f APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED LANDSCAPE MATERIALS LIST OF RECOMMENDED LANDSCAPE MATERIALS MEDIAN PLANTING Trees (Accent) Pistacia chinensis - Chinese Koelreuteria bipinnata - flowering, fall color Cercidium floridium - sculptural, branching Lagerstromia indica - Crape Trees Pistache: deciduous, fall color Chinese Flame Tree: deciduous, Blue Palo Verde: flowering, Myrtle Eucalyptus_rudis - Desert Gum Eucalyptus sideroxylon - Red Iron Bark Mel_aleucg _a uinguenervia - Cajeput Tree Quercus ilex - Holly Oak Quercus suber - Cork Oak Shrubs Hlaeagnus pungens - Silver Berry Phormium tenax - New Zealand Flax Fouguieria splendens - Ocotillo Juni erns s - Junipers Cistus - Rockrose A,Ka�panthus africanus - Lily of the Nile Encilia farinosa - Desert Encilia Pyracentha app. - Firethorn Ground Cover Juniperus app._ - Junipers Rosemarinu■ officinalis - Rosemary Pyracentha spp. - Firethorn PARKWAY. PLANTING Trees Albizis Julibrissin - Silk Tree Le erstromia indica - Crape Myrtle Brachychiton populneum - Bottle Tree Parkinsonia aculeate - Jerusalem Thorn Prunus carolinians - Carolina Laurel Cherry Pinus halegenais - Aleppo Pine Prosapis 9,1anulosa torrevana - Mesquite Palms Shrubs Fremontodendron - Flannel Bush Acacia farnesiana - Sweet Acacia Callistemon citrinus - Bottlebrush Nerium oleander - Oleander Grevillea thelemanniana - Hummingbird Bush Aakea suaveolens - Sweet Hakea Photinia serrulata - Photinia Rhus ovate - Sugar Bush Salvia - sage Xylosma congest um - Chinese Xylosma Gelsemium sespervirens - Carolina Jessamine Macfad ena un uis-cati - Cat's Claw APPENDIX E CONSTRUCTION UNIT COST DATA GRADING 0 - 1000 C.Y. 1,001 - 10,000 C.Y. 10,001 - 30,000 C.Y. 34 nOl - 60,000 C.Y. Over 60,000 C.Y. COST ESTIMATE FOR BONDING $6.50/CY $3.25/CY $2.25/CY $2.00/Cy $1.15/CY ROADWAY EXCAVATION Subgrade Preparation $0.10/SgFt EROSION CONTROL $0.60/SgFt Sand Bags $1.00/Ea Plastic Sheets (Visquene) $0.05/SgFt Landscaping b Irrigation (Trees, Shrubs, etc.) $1.10/SgFt ennii nT1r"ij 0-15/Reinforcement $9.00/LF Earth $3.00/LF STORM DRAIN 18" RCP, CMP $50.00/LF 21" RCP, CMP $54.D0/LF 24" RCP, CMP $58.00/LF 21" RCA, CMP $62.00/LF 30" RCP, CMP $64.00/LF 33" RCP, CMP $68.00/LF 36" RCP, CMP $12.00/LF 39" RCP, CMP $78.00/LF 42" RCP, CMP $84.00/LF 48" RCP, CMP. $95.00/LF 54" RCP, CMP $110.*OO/LF 60" RCP, CMP $125.00/LF 66" RCA, CMP $133.00/LF 721' Rr'). rmp $154 .00/LF C INLET Type.'A, B or'C. (L - 4' to 10') $2,000.00/EA Type A., B. or C (L - 10' .to 2Q') $2'.500.00/EA Type A„B or,.0 (L ?0to. 28') 53,000.00/EA Type 'G' Catch Basin 52,000.00/EA Type 'F' Catch Basin $1.800.00/EA CSP Inlet $1,750.00/EA CLEANOUT Type 'A' 5.2,500.00/EA Type 'B' $3.100.00/EA Sidewalk Underdrain Type 'A' ."D-25 $1,000.00/EA Sidewalk Underdrain Pipe D-27 5400.00/EA Curb Outlet 5400.00/EA HEADWALLS Gravity D-32 $1,300.00/EA Wing Type 0-34 $1,500.00/EA D-35 $1,900.00/EA R.C.B. $350.00/CY REINFORCED P.C.C. CHANNEL $4.00/SgFt RIP RAP D-40 Dumped $85.00/CY 5 Placed $100.00/CY Channel Protection $75.00/CY • ROCK EXCAVATION Blasting 510.00/CY)' No Blas ti ng 530.00/CY'� CAST -IN-PLACE CONCRETE :350.00/CY PIPE COLLAR D-62 $525.00/EA CONCRETE LUG $625.00/EA RETAINING WALLS C-1 -- C-6 6 510.00/SgFt ' ANCHORS $450.00/EA �+ 2 � . STREET PAVEMENT G7/�. •� A.C. $33. n ,s50.2�/SgFt per Inch Thick A.B. $21.0 %n 50.11/SgFt per inch Thick D.G. • 520.00/Ton O, o S. t-77 : -r4. REMOVAL Existing Pavement S0 5 5A t Existing Concrete Pavement $1:50/SgFt Existing Redwood Header 50.,45/SgFt Existing Curb 53.00/LF Existing Curb and Gutter 53:15/LF Pedestrian Ramp 5400.00/EA CURBS 6" Curb $8,V0/LF 6" Curb and Gutter 59.00/LF 8" Curb 58.00/LF SIDEWALK 4" P.C.0 52.00/SgFt DRIVEWAY 4" P.C.C. 52.00/SgFt 6" P.C.C. 52.75/SgFt CROSS GUTTER 6" P.C.C. ST.00/SgFt $10:00/LF 8" Curb and Gutter 53.75/LF 4" A.C. Berm 54.00/LF 6" A.C. Berm 54.50/LF 8" A:C. Berm SIDEWALK 4" P.C.0 52.00/SgFt DRIVEWAY 4" P.C.C. 52.00/SgFt 6" P.C.C. 52.75/SgFt CROSS GUTTER 6" P.C.C. ST.00/SgFt STREET LIGHTS 100 Watt 250 Watt FENCE Chain Link 4' Chain Link 5' Chain Link 6' Wood 6' 9,500 Lumens :30;000 Lumens GUARD POST & BARRICADE M-9 METAL BEAM BARRICADE M-1 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SIGNALS Single and Two -Phase Multiple Phase REGULATORY SIGNS 20 LF $2,300/EA $3,000/EA =1,.50/LF $8.50/LF $9.50/LF $10.00/LF $120.00/EA $25.00/LF $13.50/LF Lump Sum $50,000/EA Additional Phases $5,000/EA Stop, No Parking, Speed Limit, etc. $125.00/EA STREET NAME SIGNS $100.00/EA MONUMENTS $250.00/EA TREES Removal of $400.00/EA Planting $65.00/EA ATTACHMENTS BACKGROUND INFORMATION: AMENDMENT +1 NOTE: CHANGES REFLECTED IN AMENDMENTS 1823 ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: City Council DATE: September 23, 1986 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, AMENDMENT # 1 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-021 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21555 LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Sagebrush Avenue and Washington Street APPLICANT: Drew Wright and Associates BACKGROUND: (Refer to Attached Memo to City Council Dated 9-16-86) The above referenced requests were heard by the City Council at their meeting of September lfi 1986. The following actions were taken at the public hearing: * Approved S ecific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment ##1 as outlined in a August 12, 986, staf repo_ * Approved the Applicant's request for R-1 Zoning as per Change of Zone No. 86-021; * Continued hearing on Tentative Tract Map No. 21555, to October 7, 1986; and requested a report from the Planning Commission concerning review and finalization of recommended conditions of approval. A number of subjects were brought up in the Council's initial review of the Tentative Tract Map. Several significant points were believed to need further resolution through conditions of project approval. 1. Perimeter building height limits - The Applicant has requested that draft Condition ##19 be revised so as to allow a height of up to 30' within 75' of the perimeter property line. The approved conditions for the adjacent "The Grove" project specify the following relative to building height: " Building height shall be subject to height limitations specified in the Specific Plan, except that no building exceeding one story in height shall be allowed within 75 -feet of any perimeter property line." r CITY OF LA QUINTA TO: City Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: September li, 1986 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, AMENDMENT #1 CHANGE OF IONE NO. 86-021 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21555 LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Sagebrush Avenue and Washington Street APPLICANT: Drew Wright t Associates BACKGROUND: (Refer to Attached Staff Reports, Attachments #1-3) The above referenced requests were heard at the August 26, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, following a continuance fro■ the initial meeting of August 12, 1986 (see attachment 14). At the August 26, 1986 meeting the Planning Commission toot the following actions: e Recommended approval of Specific Plan 86-007 (Washington Street Corridor); Amendment 01 as outlined in the staff report dated August 12, 1986. e Recommended denial for Change of Zone 86-021 as requested; and { recommended R-2+*14,000 Zoning (Multi -family dwellings; 17 -foot height limit; 14,008 -square -foot minimum lot size) 4 over the entire site, as a preferred alternative. e Recommended denial for Tentative Tract 21555 as it was .found to be inconsistent with the preferred density and zoning (see attachment The City Council received a report of Commission action at their September 2, 1986, meeting; and, the Council ordered the Change of Zone Application to be set for Public Hearing (along with the other two related matters). The action of the Commission to deny the request would. have become final if no action had been taken by the Council or if the Applicant had not appealed. Indeed, the Applicant was prepared to advance an appeal, and his fee deposit has been returned inlight of the Council's order. r STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL September 16, 1986 Page 2 The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the requested amendment to the Washington Street Corridor Plan (Specific Plan No - 86 -007) was offered on the merits of the amendment, notwithstanding their action on the other items. The Change of Zone action was based on the Commission's evaluation of the request's consistency with the intent of the General Plan for utilization of the low Density Residential Land Use designation depicted in this area; believing that within a range of 2-4 dwelling units per acre, the most appropriate density for the project site was a maximum of 3 units per acre. The commission indicated that an alternate zoning of R-2++14000 would be consistent with their interpretation of the General Plan. The Tentative Tract Map supported development on the order of 3.94 d.u./a.c., and was, therefore, recommended for denial. Mr. Don Cavin, a project manager with the Sanford 600dkin Group, side a slide presentation relative to compatibility of the project with respect to the planned " Grove" project to the north of the subject site. Wayne Guralnick, the project attorney, spoke regarding access to the abutting properties. Mr. Drew Wright also appeared in support of the project. Appearing in opposition of the project were Ms. Margaret Meale, Mr. Howard Tons of the Montero Estates Homeowners Association and Mr. Jack Abels. Also appearing on behalf of Mr. Judd Mormar, property owner to the east, was Mr. Bob Lotito, of CWL Associates. He spoke relative to access to Mr. Marmor's property from the proposed tract. No one also appeared on these matters. PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: kW� *4/. Wallace N. Nesbit Murrel Crump Planning Assistant Planning Director WHN:pan Atchs: # 1 - Specific Plan 86-007 Amendment it Staff Report i 2 - Change of Zone 86-021 Staff Report t 3 - Tentative Tract 21555 Staff Report t 4 - Staff Report to Planning Commission of 8-26-86 t 5 - 8-26-86 Notice of Decision by Planning Commission MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1986 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, AMENDMENT #1 LOCATION: Washington Street between Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 APPLICANT: Drew Wright & Associates REQUEST: To Amend the Adopted Washington Street Specific Plan Text Relative to Access Provisions. BACKGROUND 1, General Plan: a. Land Use - SEE ATTACHMENT #1. b. Circulation: (1) Washington Street - designated as a Major Arterial (120' Right -of -Way; 96' Curb -to -Curb) with special design/landscaping considerations. (2) Sagebrush Avenue & Bottlebrush Drive - designated as local streets (60' Right -of -Way; 40' Curb -to -Curb). 2. Zoning: SEE ATTACHMENT #2. 3. Existing Conditions: The Washington Street Specific Plan provides for cul-de-sacs to be installed at Sagebrush Avenue and at Saguaro Drive (See Attachment #3). These streets currently serve the existing Desert Club Manor Tract, running east/west between Date Palm Drive and Washington Street. These streets access directly to Washington Street, while dead -ending at Date Palm Drive. The existing subdivision is sparsely developed along these streets with single-family homes. No other development currently exists along the east side of Washington Street between Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive. 4. Environmental Considerations: All enviromental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007 were addressed within the La Quinta General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (MEA). STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1986 Page 2. Mitigation measures set forth by the MEA, to be incorporated into Specific Plan No. 86-007, will mitigate those impacts to the extent feasible. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #1, has been determined to be within the scope of the original environmental determination. Therefore, mitigation measures to be incorporated into Specific Plan No. 86-007 will be applicable and adequate in mitigating impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007 and Amendment #1, which will be substantially similar to those associated with the original specific plan. 5. Description of Request - The Applicant's request is to amend the cul-de-sac locations as specified within the adopted Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan relative to the existing Desert Club Manor Tract (See Attachment W. The streets currently designated as being cul-de-sacs are Sagebrush Avenue and Saguaro Drive, with Bottlebrush Drive remaining as an access to Washington with no median opening. In conjunction with his proposed 40+ -acre subdivision on the north side of Sagebrush, the Applicant requests that the cul-de-sac locations be amended so that Bottlebrush Drive, rather than Sagebrush Avenue, be one of the cul-de-sac locations. The second aspect of the request is that a direct access be allowed from Washington Street to the project. itself, approximately 1000' north of Sagebrush Avenue. In addition, the Applicant requests signalization at both access points, which would dictate that median openings also be permitted. 6. Agency Comments: a. City Engineer: Do not have a problem with right -turn -only out of Sagebrush (no median opening on Washington Street). No signal would be installed at this intersection (won't meet signal warrants). Median opening could be allowed at Tract 21555 access point as it is 2200' north of Avenue 50 and 1450' south of Eisenhower. Only one median opening suggested between Avenue 50 and Eisenhower. If tract entry becomes only access for southbound Washington Street traffic, then many others will use it. We should consider public road aspect. b. City Fire Marshal: Cul-de-sacs appear in excess of 5001; secondary access provision will be necessary. c. Community Safety Department: No comment. d. Building Division: No comment. e. Coachella Valley Water District: No comment. f. Southern California Gas Company: No comment. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1986 Page 3. g. La Quinta Chamber of Commerce: No comment. h. Riverside County Sheriff's Office: No applicable comments on this proposal. i. The following agencies did not respond: - Imperial Irrigation District - General Telephone Company - La Quinta Property Owners Association - Desert Sands Unified School District STAFF COMMENTS General Plan Considerations: The amendment, as proposed by the Applicant, is generally consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. Per Policy 7.5.13, intersections (i.e., median breaks) must be spaced at least 1/4 -mile (13201) apart. This would dictate that only one median break would be advisable. Based upon the General Plan policy, the acceptable location should be at the tract access point as suggested in the City Engineer's comments. The General Plan further establishes the City as being responsible for traffic monitoring to determine the need for traffic control provisions (i.e., signali- zation). It is doubtful that either access point could meet requirements of a warrant study for signalization. Alternative Anal sis An important consideration relative to this request is access to easterly adjoining properties. Upon ultimate development of those parcels, both access points will be utilized for circulation. It is anticipated that a median break access would ultimately carry more traffic as it would handle southbound Washington Street turning movements. This dictates that various options/alternatives beyond the Applicant's needs should be addressed. Alternative #(1- Applicant's Request The Applicant proposes that a median break be permitted at the northerly tract access, with a secondary right -turn, in/out access at Sagebrush Avenue. In consideration of this alternative, it seems likely that a substantial amount of traffic would be funneled through the proposed tract. Southbound Washington Street traffic with destinations into the existing and proposed subdivisions, as well as the easterly properties, would use this access point. This would create a situation where traffic volumes within the project could be substantial in terms of normal internal subdivision traffic. This alternative would, in general, unnecessarily route additional traffic STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1986 Page 4. through the project to Sagebrush Avenue in order to access the property immediately east of the area along the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. Alternative 2 - Right Turn In Out at Both Access Points This alternative poses a number of concerns. First, any access from southbound Washington Street would require a U-turn at signalized Avenue 50, and continue north on Washington Street to either Sagebrush or the tract access. Secondly, due to this orientation, it is likely that a very minimal amount of right -turn traffic from Washington will enter at the tract access, unless a particular resident's location makes that access point more convenient. This means the majority of the traffic would move east on Sagebrush. Third, one factor which makes this a less than desirable alternative is that there would be no provision for access to southbound Washington Street. A right turn would have to be made, with the driver entering the far left- hand lane in order to make a U-turn at Eisenhower. Alternative 43 - Access with Median Break at Trac Change to Specific Plan) try only (N This alternative has basically the same effect as Alternative #1. All southbound traffic with destinations within the subdivided areas must flow through the proposed tract. This can have a number of effects ranging from the physical feeling of creating isolated areas within the tract, to creating a roadway too busy to function as an interior residential street. Also, northbound traffic moving east on Bottlebrush would intensify conflicts with driveway access on the north and south sides of the street. Alternative #4 - Access w , Median Break at Sa Access at Tract This alternative addresses most of the concerns identified by the other alternatives presented previously. It would reduce traffic flow and its impacts through both the existing and proposed tract. No southbound Washington Street traffic would enter the tract directly, nor would traffic wanting to access southbound Washington Street be able to do so from that point. This would mitigate the effects of a "through -traffic" circulation system. The routing of most traffic down Sagebrush Avenue has three advantages. First, it minimizes the number of individual driveway conflicts which would occur if traffic were to route onto Bottlebrush Drive. Second, it provides a more central access to the proposed tract, the existing tract, and the eastern properties at the terminus of Sagebrush. Third, it will allow an interim access to the proposed subdivision until such time as Washington Street is improved. Additionally, this STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1986 Page 5. configuration would allow the most consistent intersection distancing to the 1/4 -mile standard along Washington between Eisenhower and Avenue 50. Alternative #1, the Applicant's request to allow a median break at the tract entry with secondary right -turn, in/out from Sagebrush, would seem to be a feasible alternative which allows this street to access Washington. However, due to the increased amount of traffic flow via this access point, the street system would have to be designed to the appropriate standards. A private street design would be inadequate and inappropriate for this type of traffic flow. Problems such as vehicle stacking, turning movements and driveway conflicts, as well as hazards to pedestrians, would increase. Additionally, this street would also need to serve access to the adjacent property to the east, as it would be the north and south- bound access to Washington. This would funnel additional traffic through the proposed tract at time of future development of the adjacent property. As the text of the specific plan does not prohibit access to the tract itself, it is not necessary to review the request exclusively for access, but to review the tract access to the extent of its relationship to the basic request of changing the cul-de-sac locations as set forth in the specific plan. The extent of this request is to allow Sagebrush to remain as a through access to Washington, and to designate Bottlebrush Drive as a cul-de-sac location. This change is considered by Staff to be a more logical configuration based on the following: a. The access point would be an additional, approximately, 250' from the Avenue 50/Washington Street intersection, providing spacing close or equal to the 1/4 -mile standard of the General Plan; b. It would create a more central access for the proposed Tentative Tract 21555 and the existing Desert Club Manor Tract; c. Location of this access would provide adequate accessibility to projects which may develop in the future to the east of the current terminus of Sagebrush Avenue; d. Individual driveway conflicts with through traffic would be reduced, as only one side of Sagebrush provides access to existing single-family lots. Based on the previously discussed alternatives and preceding consid- erations, a cul-de-sac at the Bottlebrush Drive access to Washington Street is considered a more appropriate location. Access at Sagebrush Avenue will provide more efficient access to properties in the area STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1986 Page 6. and more consistent access spacing along Washington, as it is antici- pated that a median break along this segment will be necessary in order to adequately serve those properties. Direct tract entry considerations are related primarily to the development proposal itself, and will be more extensively reviewed with that request. However, it is important to consider the impacts of this access as it relates to the Washington Street Plan and the segment of the plan that this request affects. Based on General Plan goals and policies as they relate to the Washington Street Specific Plan, access to Washington Street at Sagebrush rather than Bottlebrush should allow a more logical and efficient circulation pattern and provide better overall accessibility in this area. CONCLUSIONS 1. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #1, is consistent with goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment ##1, is consistent with the intent of the original Specific Plan No. 86-007. 3. Environmental impacts identified by the original EIR for the La Quinta General Plan, as they relate to Specific Plan No. 86-007, are substantially the same as those associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #1. 4. Location of a cul-de-sac at Bottlebrush will allow for an access at Sagebrush, which could ocnform to General Plan standards to allow a median break. 5. Sagebrush Avenue is a more central location for serving properties on the east side of Washington Street. 6. A median break to allow southbound Washington Street traffic access and egress to easterly properties seems desirable. 7. Access at Bottlebrush provides less than minimal intersection distance for a median break to provide access to and from southbound Washington Street. 8. Extension of Sagebrush east of Date Palm Drive along its existing alignment will adequately serve the parcels east of Date Palm Drive. 9. Access at Sagebrush Avenue will provide some flexibility for intersection location and design relative to the proposed tentative tract, for which the amendment was requested. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1986 Page 7. FINDINGS 1. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #1, is consistent with goals and policies set forth in the La Quinta General Plan, subject to the amendment recommendation. 2. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #1, is consistent with the intent and provisions of the original Specific Plan No. 86-007. 3. Environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #1, are substantially equivalent to those associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007. 4. The EIR prepared for the La Quinta General Plan is adequate in addressing environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #1. 5. Approval of Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #1, will not result in adverse impacts to the environment as these impacts were addressed in the EIR prepared for the La Quinta General Plan. 6. Location of access at Sagebrush Avenue will lessen the impacts of increased traffic flow on existing and proposed developments. 7. Location of an access at Sagebrush Avenue will allow for adequate access provisions to parcels east of Date Palm Drive. 8. Location of an access at Sagebrush Avenue will allow some flexi- bility in the location and type of access within the guidelines of the original Specific Plan No. 86-007, the La Quinta General Plan, and existing and future conditions. 9. The location of an access at more logical collection and proposed development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Sagebrush Avenue will provide for a dispersal of traffic for existing and Based upon the above finding, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #1, subject to the recommended text changes attached as Exhibits "A" and "B". STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1986 Page 8. PREPARED BY: I'ti��/-/.1,% Wallace H. Nesbit Planning Assistant WHIN : LLS : dmv APP ©VE:BY: Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Community Development Director Atchs: Attachment #1, Land Use Plan Attachment #2, Existing Zoning Attachment #3, Cul -De -Sac Locations (Wash. St. Spec. P1.) Attachment #4, Limits of SP 86-007, #1 Exhibit "A", Staff Recommendation Exhibit "B", Cul -De -Sac Locations (Appl's. Request) 3 ATTACHMENT *1 (-;ITY OF LA QUiNTA LAND USE PLAN RESIDENTIAL i VERY LOW DENSITY 0-2 dwellings/acre 1#If[ITS OF SPECIftC PLAM:: . LOW DENSITY 2-4 dwellings/acre So MEDIUM DENSITY 4-8 dwellings/acre #86-007'. AMENDMENT #!° HIGH DENSITY 8-18 dwellings/acts.-: i .. w 1#If[ITS OF SPECIftC PLAM:: . .,.. So y+ •. r7, #86-007'. AMENDMENT #!° •y r da - L go' .,ps :. :c: •_ •ryi VC �r fir. " _ _ f; - • • • • • • • • • • • • • r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • + • • * • • • So y+ •. r7, - L :c: •_ •ryi VC �r fir. " _ _ f; - .WAW. �ejjnmnfm-i RN m SIR ,11IS have. ti. lily .•�7� FAYE VAIN ss &4-014 ATTACHMENT *2 EXISTING ZONING 1 r } i - �i�TTT 1 `I ,4r r 11 ( _. --------------- .WAW. �ejjnmnfm-i RN m SIR ,11IS have. ti. lily .•�7� FAYE VAIN ss &4-014 ATTACHMENT *2 EXISTING ZONING 1 r �i�TTT 1 • )t, 3, r PROPOSED SITE; I ; 17 - ��-_---- ..--�JL.- Ilk� 000 out 1 1 r+'+cn 1, 7<rr•1 � • ATTACHMENT #4 I LIMITS OF SPECIFIC PLAN 4186-007, AMENDMENT *1 .... ......... ATTACHMENT #4 I LIMITS OF SPECIFIC PLAN 4186-007, AMENDMENT *1 EXHIBIT "A" STAFF RECOMMENDATION Amend Table VIII - Recommended Mitigation Measures and Costs Priority #8 on Page 42, to read as follows: 118. Cul-de-sac Bottlebrush Drive, Saguaro Drive, Calle Paloma (2 locations), and Calle Obispo (2 locations)." Add the following paragraph between paragraphs 2 and 3 on Page 43 as follows: "Roadway access for new development proposals shall be based on applicable standards within the La Quinta General Plan and requirements of the City Engineer, as they relate to a specific project. Proposals will be reviewed on a case-by- case basis with respect to the guidelines of this study and the standards indicated above." CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS CONFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND APPROVING THE WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDMENT #2, TO RETAIN A PORTION OF WASHINGTON STREET'S EXISTING ALIGNMENT SOUTH OF EISENHOWER DRIVE WHEREAS, said Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has determined after initial study (Environmental Assessment No. 87-078) that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration should be filed. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing on Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #2, as required by Section 65503 of the California Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on the Specific Plan Amendment No. 86-007, Amendment #2, and at said public hearing did make the following findings to support the Amendment: 1. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment 12, is consistent with goals and policies set forth in the La. Quinta General Plan. 2. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment 12, is consistent with the intent and provisions of the original Specific Plan No. 86-007. 3. Environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #2, are substantially equivalent to those associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007. MR/RESOCC.008 1 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, AMENDMENT #2 WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR PLAN (0 WHEREAS, the City Council did adopt Specific Plan No. 7 86-007 on March 4, 1986, after holding at least one public hearing m and based upon the findings contained in Resolution No.86-14; and, < WHEREAS, the City has initiated an amendment to the Specific Plan which is deemed necessary in order to further the intent of the original specific plan; and, WHEREAS, said Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has determined after initial study (Environmental Assessment No. 87-078) that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration should be filed. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing on Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #2, as required by Section 65503 of the California Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on the Specific Plan Amendment No. 86-007, Amendment #2, and at said public hearing did make the following findings to support the Amendment: 1. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment 12, is consistent with goals and policies set forth in the La. Quinta General Plan. 2. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment 12, is consistent with the intent and provisions of the original Specific Plan No. 86-007. 3. Environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #2, are substantially equivalent to those associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007. MR/RESOCC.008 1 130 4. Retention of the existing alignment of Washington Street, south of Eisenhower, will serve to increase traffic safety in the area. 5. Retention of the existing alignment will avoid costly relocation of existing utility systems already in place and under construction. 6. Retention of the existing alignment will not affect previously existing or approved access for development along the Washington Street corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true an correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 87-078, in that the approval of this Amendment will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for filing; 3. That it does hereby approve Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment 112, "Washington Street Corridor Study", as amended and in accordance with attached Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of January, 1988, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Bohnenberger, Pena, Sniff NOES: Mayor Hoyle ABSENT: Councilwoman Cox ABSTAIN: Nonekz Y= - Z { WILLIAM R. HOYLE,Ma or City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUIMA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: BARRY BRANDT, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California MR/RESOCC.008 2 SPECIFIC PLAN 86-007, AMENDMENT NO.2 EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 88-3 JANUARY 19, 1988 A. Amend the "Conclusions" section (paragraph 6) on Page 3 to read as follows: "The horizontal curve in Washington Street, south of Eisenhower Drive, should be maintained in order to aid in reducing traffic speed and avoid costly utility relocations which are unnecessary for development of the corridor." B. Amend Page 35 (first paragraph) to read as follows: "The horizontal curvature of the roadway in this area is viewed as a benefit, in that it serves to reduce the "dragstrip" effect usually associated with lengthy arterials designed for higher speeds, such as that designated for Washington Street." C. Delete Figure 13, (entire Page 36), relative to realignment of Washington Street, south of Eisenhower Drive. D. Revise Table VIII, Page 42, Priority Project #9, to read as follows: "Widen Washington Street to six lanes between Highland Palms Drive and Avenue 50, with Avenue 50 signalized." E. Revise "Figure 14..." to read "Figure 13...", and "Figure 15..." to read "Figure 14..." (pages 44 and 46, respectively). F. Amend Page 43 (paragraph 5) to refer to "Figure 13". G. Amend Page 46 (paragraph 5) to refer to "Figure 14". H. Amend "List of Figures" section to reflect previously described Figure changes. I. Amend "Appendix A - Estimated Right -of -Way Requisition Requirements" as follows: ..w........w.-...-..........-..w....w.. w.-.... .�� �.�.... .ww.w. ww.w .-.�w.�..,.. ASSESSORS LIMAR ULTIMATE EU STING TOTAL FAIICEL ZONING MONTAGE 1/2 vim 1/2 vim SQ.Fr.LO.11 ESTIMATED S NO. DESIG. (FEET) FROM C/L R.O.Y. ACQUISITION (S10 PER S0. .w...w...w ...w....rw......w �.. r.. -r ww-.- N•. -N .w.� ....a.-aw w. �.w •.a .-......r South of Eisenhower 6 Eeet of YeeAingtoos 617-283-06 R-2 716 30 -0- 21.480 $216,800 617-31-23 N-3 657 N/A N/A UNI !#iR 617-4841 1-3 917 N/A N/A UNE INR 617-32-17 N-1 -0- UN[ -a- cm an 617-32-18 s-1 »o am UFK un CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 89- 34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND APPROVING WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 3, REALIGNING THE WASHINGTON STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN AVENUE 48 AND HIGHWAY 111 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, AMENDMENT NO. 3 WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council did adopt Specific Plan No. 86-007 on March 4, 1986, after holding at least one public hearing and based upon the findings contained in Resolution No.86-14; and, WHEREAS, the City has initiated an amendment to the Specific Plan which is deemed necessary in order to further the intent of the original specific plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, did, on the 14th day of February, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #3, as required by Section 65503 of the California Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 21st day of March, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 3, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the environmental analysis and Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 3; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 3, will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be head, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of said Specific Plan 86-007, Amendment No. 3: MR/RESOCC.032 -1- 1. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 3, is consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the La Quinta General Plan, in that uncontrolled access for the Highland Palms area to Washington Street will be controlled with the construction of a frontage road. 2. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 3, is consistent with the intent and provisions of the original Specific Plan No. 86-007, in that the Plan identified the need for a frontage road. This Amendment does not eliminate that need, but provides better circulation movement to the area. 1 3. Environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 3, are substantially equivalent to those associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007. 4. Realignment of Washington Street between Avenue 48 and Highway 111 will serve to increase traffic safety in the area. 5. Realignment will not affect previously existing or approved access for development along the Washington Street Corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true an correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this matter; 2. That it does hereby confirm the determination in the Environmental Assessment relative to the environmental concerns for this Specific Plan Amendment; 3. That it does hereby approve the subject Specific Plan Amendment for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached revisions, identified as Exhibit A. MR/RESOCC.032 -2- PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 21st day of March, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Bosworth, Rushworth Sniff & Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None JOHN PINA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California I AUNDRA L. JUH , City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROV D AS TO FORM: BARRY BR�T, City Attorney City of Quinta, California MR/RESOCC.032 -3- Council Resolution Recommended Changes March 21, 1989 EXHIBIT A No. 89 - for SP 86-007, Amendment No. 3 Page 2, Replace Paragraph 2 with the following: The current City of La Quinta ultimate standards by Which Washington Street is to be constructed call for a 96 -foot curb -to -curb roadway within a 120 -foot right-of-way. Additional right-of-way to the east is needed north of Avenue 48 to Singing Palms Drive in order to accommodate the frontage road. Specific detailing can be found elsewhere within this text. A typical section based on current standards would include an 18 -foot wide median; lanes of 12, 13, and the 14 -foot widths, and 12 -foot parkways on both sides of the street. The current standards permit the addition of a third travel lane in each direction via elimination of the parking/emergency lanes, if added roadway capacity becomes necessary. This Transportation Systems Management (TSM) technique is commonly applied in urban areas. Page 4, Replace Paragraph 3 with the following: Establish a new alignment for Washington Street to provide a 32 -foot local access road on the west side within a 202 -foot right-of-way, as indicated in this report, generally between Avenue 48 and Singing Palms Drive. Page 23, Relace Paragraph 3 with the following: Ultimate Roadway According to the City of La Quintals General Plan Circulation Element, Washington Street between the I-10 and 52nd Avenue is designated as a Major Arterial with 120 feet of ultimate right-of-way, except for the area generally between Avenue 48 and Singing Palms Drive Which will have a 202 -foot right-of-way to accommodate a frontage road. Figure 6 illustrates the cross-section roadway dimensions for Major Arterials as given in the City's General Plan. As illustrated,' the subject cross-section includes a curb -to -curb pavement width of 96 feet, two 12 -foot parkways, and a maximum median island width of 18 feet. The illustration for the intersection at Highland Palms Drive and Washington Street is shown on Figure 13, Revised. Either four or MR/DOCJH.024 -1- six travel lanes may be provided, depending upon inclusion of bicycle lanes and the median island width. Alternative roadway configurations are presented in Figure 7 and Figure 8. Page 32, Replace Paragraph 2 with the following: A special design alternative was developed for the Washington Street Corridor from Singing Palms Drive to Highland Palms Drive, where an existing single-family residential development on the west side is accessed directly from Washington Street; and vacant property is located on the east side of the corridor. The latter opportunity is used to realign Washington Street approximately 44 feet to the east and create a 32 -foot wide frontage road with a 12 -foot wide greenbelt buffer between the residences and Washington Street. This alternative would include Washington Street generally between Avenue 48 and Singing Palms Drive. It would restrict the Singing Palms Drive intersection with Washington Street to allow southbound right turn ingress only; install a five -phase signal at the Highland Palms Drive intersection; provide parking on the residence side of the frontage road; a soundwall and landscaping buffer, and a landscaped median divider on Washington Street. The subject alternative, construction cost estimated at $850,000, is illustrated in Figures 11, 12, and 12A. Page 42, Replace Item 2 with the following: Widen Washington Street to 6 lanes between Singing Palms Drive and Avenue 48, per Figure 11 of this text, and signalize Washington at Highland Palms. MR/DOCJH.024 -2- TYPICAL SECTION W JL wl �•�,�r,; ..�. �'� ao �: act � + RESTRICT ACCESS 6Y NI I FID r COEUR r, !G. --� ONE-WAY ENTRANCE ONLY 1 VIA SEt•ARATE RIGHT \ \ TURN ONLY LANE r r M }r act _ n WA'HINGTON " "=. r .. =:jjt� +.�..•, = STREET +, ...;. i a k r Rat[ 'Y �•�,�r,; ..�. �'� ao �: act � FID r COEUR r, !G. 1 • r r M }r act n WA'HINGTON " "=. r .. =:jjt� +.�..•, = STREET +, ...;. i a k r Rat[ SIGNALIZE. rr FRONTAGE •... ..• ROAO iLT Z_ Figure 11 WASHINGTON STREET REALIGNMENT SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 REVISED -33- I ! 11I I k4 � 1 0. �4 1 ►�+'NIM�'2G' Figure 12 TYPICAL SECTION FOR WASHINGTON STREET REALIGNMENT SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 REVISED -34- N not to scale I I r. I I I I r I I I I I I I � U. I J I W cc I � I W / dOLS \ 6 -PHASE existing curbTRAFFIC FUTURE STREET "`iii��� SIGNAL 1 SEUP t I I I I I I I I I I nottoscale I I I I I I I I ! I k f FRONTAGE ROAD INTERSECTION Figure 13 REVISED —44— I I �_► ems► _ m—...� WASHINGTON / STREET R E f E R E N C. E S C....,..,.�� INTERSECTION DETAIL N E V I :s 1 n N flNtyMO PALMS ORIK - - - �Ar�r�.— ••••» •• •• • • RLVISLD 9'LLVIC PLAN CITY 0f L A 0 U I N TA WAS"KN smut —77-.. r.r Gir a. t . TVnLn lryA T PLAN VIEW ,a 3' 8'3' 14' 12' ,. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY _�r� rtes PLAN VIEW -25- WASHINGTON STREET PARKWAY ALTERNATIVES SHEET 1 of 2 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1 2 -WAY BIKEWAY 12 13' 18' 1 13' 12' 960 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 2 2 -WAY BIKEWAY PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY 2—WAY BIKEWAY PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY 2—WAY BIKEWAY PLAN VIEW • 1 PLAN VIEW .f.. +rte rl.. I� 1.•-. 1 {I 47 t ,. R/W��', t: 2' 4' 4' 2 14' 12' PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY d} � '"• r "`' '� � 1—WAY BIKEWAY PLAN VIEW n .1 714 i R / W : �� I a � � •` r: 1 4'_.12'[ 4' 2' 14' 12' PEDESTRIAN p WALKWAY I� f=. 1—WAY BIKEWAY PLAN VIEW —26- 12' 12' WASHINGTON STREET PARKWAY ALTERNATIVES SHEET 2 of 2 Figure 8 SCHEMATIC: NOT TO SCALE 13' 13' 18' 3` 12' ALTERNATIVE PLAN 3 1—WAY BIKEWAY 18' 13' 12' �T ALTERNATIVE= PLAN 4 1—WAY BIKEWAY - r R/W r 14' 2' 4+ 4' 2, 12' PEDESTRIAN Y.x •:, - . �= WALKWAY 1—WAY BIKEWAY - 4 � PLAN VIEW 1` I A / w� 12' a I� PEDESTRIAN I WALKWAY 1—WAY BIKEWAY + . PLAN VIEW c CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND APPROVING WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 3, REALIGNING THE WASHINGTON STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN AVENUE 48 AND HIGHWAY 111 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, AMENDMENT NO. 3 WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council did adopt Specific Plan No. 86-007 on March 4, 1986, after holding at least one public hearing and based upon the findings contained in Resolution No.86-14; and, WHEREAS, the City has initiated an amendment to the Specific Plan which is deemed necessary in order to further the intent of the original specific plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, did, on the 14th day of February, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #3, as required by Section 65503 of the California Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 21st day of March, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 3, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the environmental analysis and Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 3; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 3, will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be head, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of said Specific Plan 86-007, Amendment No. 3: MR/RESOCC.032 -1- 1. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 3, is consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the La Quinta General Plan, in that uncontrolled access for the Highland Palms area to Washington Street will be controlled with the construction of a frontage road. 2. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 3, is consistent with the intent and provisions of the original Specific Plan No. 86-007, in that the Plan identified the need for a frontage road. This Amendment does not eliminate that need, but provides better circulation movement to the area. 3. Environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 3, are substantially equivalent to those associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007. 4. Realignment of Washington Street between Avenue 48 and Highway 111 will serve to increase traffic safety in the area. 5. Realignment will not affect previously existing or approved access for development along the Washington Street Corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true an correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this matter; 2. That it does hereby confirm the determination in the Environmental Assessment relative to the environmental concerns for this Specific Plan Amendment; 3. That it does hereby approve the subject Specific Plan Amendment for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached revisions, identified as Exhibit A. MR/RESOCC.032 -2- PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 21st day of March, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: BARRY BRANDT, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California MR/RESOCC.032 -3- CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS CONFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND APPROVING THE WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDMENT #2, TO RETAIN A PORTION OF WASHINGTON STREET'S EXISTING ALIGNMENT SOUTH OF EISENHOWER DRIVE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, AMENDMENT #2 WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council did adopt Specific Plan No. 86-007 on March 4, 1986, after holding at least one public hearing and based upon the findings contained in Resolution No.86-14; and, WHEREAS, the City has initiated an amendment to the Specific Plan which is deemed necessary in order to further the intent of the original specific plan; and, WHEREAS, said Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has determined after initial study (Environmental Assessment No. 87-078) that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration should be filed. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing on Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #2, as required by Section 65503 of the California Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on the Specific Plan Amendment No. 86-007, Amendment #2, and at said public hearing did make the following findings to support the Amendment: 1. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #2, is consistent with goals and policies set forth in the La Quinta General Plan. 2. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #2, is consistent with the intent and provisions of the original Specific Plan No. 86-007. 3. Environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #2, are substantially equivalent to those associated with Specific Plan No. 86-007,. MR/RESOCC.008 1 4. Retention of the existing alignment of Washington Street, south of Eisenhower, will serve to increase traffic safety in the area. 5. Retention of the existing alignment will avoid costly relocation of existing utility systems already in place and under construction. 6. Retention of the existing alignment will not affect previously existing or approved access for development along the Washington Street corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true an correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 87-078, in that the approval of this Amendment will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for filing; 3. That it does hereby approve Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #2, "Washington Street Corridor Study", as amended and in accordance with attached Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1988, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WILLIAM R. HOYLE, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: BARRY BRANDT, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California MR/RESOCC.008 2