Rancho Mirage City Council
October 19, 2023

Figure 2-3 depicts the proposed land uses, site access connections, and internal circulation system planned to support the development. A maximum of 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3,138,600 square feet of non-residential development (retail commercial, entertainment, office, hotel) would be allowed by the Section 24 Specific Plan. The mixed-use development proposed would incorporate “complete streets” designed to be supportive of transit and alternative transportation modes. The proposed development reflects the policies and goals set forth in the Riverside County General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan which encourage more concentrated growth at key locations with existing regional and local transportation infrastructure.

The 1,200 single-family residential dwelling units proposed within a gated community designed for active senior adults (residency would be limited to adults aged 55 and above) would complement surrounding existing and planned land uses in the City of Rancho Mirage. The higher density multiple-family attached dwelling units would reflect the emerging pattern

1 The Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) is the approved regional transportation model used to forecast future horizon year 2035 traffic projections for the project site. In RIVTAM, the gross acreage designated in the Riverside County General Plan for commercial land uses is converted to net acreage (by assuming that 25 percent of the gross area would be reserved for roads, rights-of-way, easements, etc.) and the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) represents the non-residential building floor area divided by the net area of each parcel. 2 These “unadjusted” trips represent the sum of the individual trip-generation estimates associated with each land use within the mixed-use development, without adjustments to remove the double counting of internally-captured trips (i.e., trips with both an origin and a destination within the site that would occur without requiring vehicular travel on external streets). 12-1958
1-3
of more concentrated growth and increased job creation to more cost-effectively accommodate the future transit demands created.

The project site encompasses 577 acres of which approximately 528 net acres would ultimately be developed. The remaining 49+ acres within the site would be roadway rights-of-way. Table 2-2 summarizes the proposed land uses within the site by Planning Area. The proposed land use designations include: Retail, Resort Flex, Mixed Use Core, Residential (Multiple-Family), and Residential (Single-Family) for active seniors (age 55 and over). The initial phase of development would include the development of up to 1,200 single-family homes for active adults (aged 55 and above) within Planning Area 8. The Section 24 Specific Plan would include up to 1,206 multiple-family residential dwellings after the initial phase.

Although no time frame has been established for the future development of Planning Areas 1 through 7, these areas are being planned in conjunction with the Section 24 Specific Plan to coordinate streets and other necessary infrastructure and promote land use compatibility.

The RIVTAM model run conducted for the traffic analysis was based on socioeconomic data derived from the proposed residential units and square feet of non-residential uses. The analysis conducted for the study evaluated 3,138,600 square feet of non-residential uses and 2,406 residential units. After this model run was conducted, minor adjustments were made to the configuration of the Planning Areas. The configuration currently proposed for the Draft Section 24 Specific Plan site will allow the development of 529 net acres of the 577-acre site, with 313 net acres in Planning Area 8, 216 net acres in Planning Areas 1 through 7, and 48 acres for roadway rights-of-way. The differences between the size of the Planning Areas originally assumed for the traffic analysis (312 net acres for Planning Area 8, 216 net acres for Planning Areas 1 through 7, and 49 acres of roadway rights-of-way) versus the Draft Specific Plan as currently proposed (313 net acres for PA 8, 216 net acres for PA 1 through 7, and 48 acres for roadway rights-of-way) would not alter the trip generation. The differences between the Specific Plan addressed in the traffic analysis and the currently proposed Specific Plan would not affect the socioeconomic parameters used in the RIVTAM run. Therefore, the analysis presented in this study is consistent with the total non-residential development area and residential units proposed in the Specific Plan.

Proposed Site Access
Figure 2-3 illustrates the proposed site access and internal circulation layout including the internal street designations referred to throughout this report. The initial phase would ultimately be accessed via full-turn access connections proposed opposite three existing T-type intersections (Intersections 8, 9 and 12), as shown in Figure 2-3. However, the extension of Casino Road, from Bob Hope Drive to Planning Area 8, would not be constructed by Pulte Homes as part of the improvements associated with the development of the active adult community in the initial phase.

The timing of the construction of Casino Road on-site, between Planning Area 8 and Bob Hope Drive, is currently unknown.

The extension of Casino Road to Planning Area 8 may not occur until adjacent land within Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, and/or 5 is developed. Although the connection of Casino Road on-site between Planning Area 8 and Bob Hope Drive is planned, there may be an interval when the initial phase is completed without the access afforded by Casino Road. As a result, the evaluation of the traffic impacts associated with the completion of the initial phase of development assumed that Casino Road would not be constructed between Planning Area 8 and Bob Hope Drive by the year 2022.

The site access plan proposed to support the ultimate development within the project site would include two existing signalized intersections (Intersections 9, and 12). In addition, five future signalized full-turn site access intersections are proposed (Intersections 13, 18, 19, 20, and 21) as well as two future unsignalized full-turn access intersections (Intersections 22 and 23). All seven of the proposed right-in/right-out access connections would be associated with phases of site development after the initial phase is completed.

The two future signalized full-turn site access intersections proposed on Ramon Road, between Los Alamos Road and Bob Hope Drive, (Intersections 18 and 19) would be located opposite the future access intersections associated with the adopted City of Rancho Mirage Section 13 Specific Plan to the north. The two future signalized full-turn site access intersections proposed on Bob Hope Drive, between Casino Road and Dinah Shore Drive, (Intersections 20 and 21) would be located opposite future access intersections associated with the adopted City of Rancho Mirage Section 19 Specific Plan to the east.

Project Phasing
Planning Area 8 would be developed as the initial phase of the proposed project. Buildout of Planning Area 8 is expected to require six to eight years to complete and occur by the year 2022. No time frame has been established to date for development within Planning Areas 1 through 7. For the purposes of this traffic impact analysis, buildout of the entire project 12-1959
1-4
was assumed to occur by the year 2035, which is the horizon year used in the approved regional transportation model (RIVTAM).

1.5 Principal Findings
Performance Criteria
The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan states that for development within the Sphere of Influence of an incorporated jurisdiction, city standards should generally apply where annexation to the city will logically occur in the short to intermediate range future. The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan identifies the adopted performance criteria to be used to evaluate the adequacy of the circulation system to serve the desired future land uses as follows: “While LOS C has long been considered the desirable and optimal level of traffic volume on any given roadway, it represents a standard that is progressively more difficult and less cost-effective to achieve in urban areas. For peak operating periods, LOS D or a maximum volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.90 is now considered the generally acceptable service level.” The City of Cathedral City standard is LOS D. The City of Palm Desert has adopted LOS C as the target for design purposes but considers LOS D provisionally acceptable for intersections that are fully improved and cannot be mitigated to achieve LOS C.

Existing Conditions
All of the seventeen key intersections are currently providing acceptable levels of service in the peak season during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. Peak hour traffic volumes do not currently warrant traffic control signals at the unsignalized key intersection of Los Alamos Road with Via Bella or the intersection of the Westin Resort Villas access with Dinah Shore Drive. The project site has adequate access for the land uses proposed.

Existing Plus Initial Phase Conditions
The initial phase of the proposed development would generate approximately 4,480 weekday trips of which 234 would occur during the morning peak hour and 289 would occur during the evening peak hour on weekdays. Although site traffic generated by the initial phase of development would degrade the peak hour LOS at two of the site access intersections (Intersection 8 and 12) from LOS A to LOS B, this impact would not be significant. All of the key intersections and site access intersections would provide acceptable levels of service upon completion of the initial phase, provided the intersection of Los Alamos Road with Via Bella [Intersection 8] and the intersection of the Westin Mission Hills Access with Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12] are improved to provide site access, as shown in Figure 6-2. No new traffic signals would be warranted or required by the initial phase of development. Although multiple access points are desirable to minimize circuitous travel, provide alternate access during maintenance activities and enhance emergency access, the two initial access connections would provide sufficient capacity for the initial phase of development. The extension of Casino Road, from Bob Hope Drive to Planning Area 8, would facilitate internal trip interactions between the active adult community and the non-residential land uses developed in subsequent phases of the Section 24 Specific Plan.

Existing Plus Project Buildout Conditions
Development of the project site at the maximum intensity/density that would be permitted by the proposed Specific Plan would add 59,450 weekday trips to the surrounding street system. Of that total, approximately 2,965 trips would be inbound to the site and 2,874 trips would be outbound from the site during the evening peak hour on a typical weekday.

Traffic generated by the project would cause the peak hour traffic signal warrants to be met at five intersections where site access is proposed including: two future intersections proposed on Ramon Road, two future intersections proposed on Bob Hope Drive, and one existing unsignalized intersection on Dinah Shore Drive, where a site access connection is proposed.

All of these intersections would be signalized in conjunction with the proposed project. All of the key intersections are projected to provide acceptable levels of service in the peak hours on weekdays with existing plus project buildout traffic volumes, provided the proposed site access improvements and traffic control signals (shown in Figure 6-3) are constructed when necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed development. No improvements would be required for existing plus project buildout traffic volumes, other than the improvements proposed to facilitate site access. 12-1960
1-5
Future Year 2022 Through Traffic Conditions (With No Site Traffic) Future year 2022 through (non-site) traffic conditions were evaluated by adding to existing traffic volumes: (1) the cumulative traffic associated with two near-term developments, and (2) the portion of the projected future growth between the year 2013 and the year 2035 expected to occur by the year 2022. As shown in Tables 5-6 and 5-7, the key intersections are projected to operate at acceptable peak hour levels or service in the year 2022 without the traffic generated by the initial phase of the proposed project. All of the key intersections except two would operate at LOS C or better during the peak hours with the projected year 2022 through traffic volumes. Two of the signalized key intersections (Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive) are projected to operate at LOS D during the morning peak hours and LOS C during the evening peak hours with the year 2022 through traffic volumes. These levels of service are considered acceptable.

Future Year 2022 Plus Initial Phase Conditions
The addition of the site traffic generated by the active adult homes in the initial phase of development to area roadways in the year 2022 would change the peak hour level of service on the minor-street approach at one unsignalized key intersection. During weekday evening peak hours, the site traffic generated by the initial phase is expected to increase the average control delay experienced by eastbound motorists on Via Bella approaching the intersection of Los Alamos Road by 0.6 seconds per vehicle. This increase would cause the peak hour level of service on the approach with the most delay at this intersection to drop from LOS A to LOS B. Since the intersection would have very little control delay and operate at LOS B or better, this impact would be less than significant. The addition of site traffic is not projected to change the peak hour LOS at any of the signalized key intersections in the year 2022.

Horizon Year 2035 Plus Project Buildout Traffic Conditions As shown in Tables 5-8 and 5-9 the ultimate street system shown in both the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan and the Riverside County General Plan would accommodate the traffic associated with buildout of the proposed project in the horizon year 2035 at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better). With the future horizon year 2035 traffic projections, deficiencies were identified at two of the off-site key intersections evaluated: (1) Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive, and (2) Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road. Each of these key intersections would require localized mitigation to maintain acceptable levels of service in the form of an additional left-turn lane on one approach, as shown in Figure 6-4. These required improvements would be consistent with the General Plan classifications of Gerald Ford Drive and Da Vall Drive, where the mitigation would be required.

Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive [Intersection 17] would require a second eastbound left-turn lane to accommodate projected year 2035 traffic volumes with or without site traffic. The City of Rancho Mirage has included improvements to this intersection in the 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The planned improvements include the provision of dual left-turn lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane on all four approaches to this intersection. Construction is scheduled to start in May 2015 and end in October, 2015.

Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 3] would require a second southbound left-turn lane to accommodate projected year 2035 traffic volumes with or without traffic from the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan project. Existing development encroaches on the right-of-way required to widen Da Vall Drive to the four-lane divided roadway classification shown in both City and County General Plans. The additional southbound left-turn lane required on Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road would be consistent with the improvements typically required on a four-lane divided roadway.

The 2010 Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) identifies eligible transportation improvement projects on the Regional Arterial system and ranks them based upon various evaluation criteria. CVAG distributes regional transportation improvement funds (including revenue from Measure A and the TUMF program) to supplement local revenues and/or developer contributions required for approved regional road construction projects. CVAG’s policy is to pay 75 percent of eligible project costs, with the public agencies responsible for approving the project contributing the remaining 25 percent.

The widening of Da Vall Drive to its ultimate cross-section, between Ramon Road and Vista Chino, is an eligible and buildable project (designated B-419) in the TPPS. With a score of 9.3 points, it is ranked 88th of the 247 buildable projects therein. The required mitigation for the intersection of Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road should be part of this roadway improvement project.
12-1961
1-6
The remaining key intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service with the improvements proposed for the site access intersections, as shown in Figure 6-4. Five of the proposed site access intersections would require signalization to provide acceptable levels of service. Four of the five site access intersections that would require signalization are future intersections proposed in conjunction with the Section 24 Specific Plan with traffic signal control. The fifth site access point that would require signalization is proposed on Dinah Shore Drive, approximately 1,220 feet west of Bob Hope Drive (opposite the existing Westin Resort Villas access).

1.6 Recommendations
Section 6 provides a detailed discussion of: (1) standard mitigation for individual development projects, (2) recommendations associated with the initial phase of development, and (3) recommendations associated with full development of the Section 24 Specific Plan. The existing approach lane geometrics at the key intersections are shown in Figure 6-1. Figure 6-2 illustrates the minimum lane geometrics required at the key intersections for the initial phase of the proposed development. Figure 6-3 illustrates the minimum approach lane geometrics required and traffic control assumed for existing plus project buildout conditions. Figure 6-4 illustrates the minimum approach lane geometrics required and traffic control assumed for conditions in the horizon year 2035. The approach lanes therein represent: (1) existing lanes; (2) lanes required to eliminate off-site intersection deficiencies; and (3) future lanes recommended to ensure adequate site access and internal circulation.

Initial Phase Improvements
The developer of the initial phase shall provide, at a minimum, the lane geometrics shown in Figure 6-2 at the site access points in conjunction with the development of the initial phase.

1. The developer of the initial phase shall provide, at a minimum, the lane geometrics shown in Figure 6-2 at the site access points in conjunction with the development of the initial phase. - A “STOP” sign shall be installed facing westbound vehicles at the site access proposed on Los Alamos Road, opposite Via Bella [Intersection 8] and a northbound and southbound left-turn bay shall be provided in the median on Los Alamos Road at the intersection of Via Bella. - The existing traffic control signal and approach lane geometrics shall be modified at the intersection of the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort Access with Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12] to provide access to the initial phase of development. Two southbound exit lanes shall be provided, including a dedicated right-turn lane and a shared through/left lane. Two northbound entry lanes shall be provided to permit residents to enter while a visitor is awaiting authorization for entry.

2. Adequate stacking distance (100 feet) shall be provided on the approach to each of the three proposed gated entries to store vehicles entering the initial phase. The pavement in advance of the gate shall be wide enough to allow non-accepted vehicles to turn around in advance of the gate. Any gated entry that allows visitor access should provide two entry lanes to allow residents to bypass the vehicles of visitors awaiting entry authorization.

3. The controlled primary entryways to the initial phase of development may be required to include provisions to facilitate access by emergency vehicles. If required, all power-operated controlled access devices shall have a radio-controlled override system capable of opening the gate or barrier when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles and be equipped to facilitate opening in the event of a power failure.

4. An adequate supply of off-street parking in appropriate locations is an essential component of a balanced neighborhood and should be provided within the initial phase to meet the needs of residents and visitors. Regular use of on-street parking should be expected and accommodated because visitor parking will be heavy at times.

Project Buildout Improvements
The minimum required site access improvements shown in Figure 6-4, including the intersection approach lane geometrics, “STOP “ signs, and new traffic control signals, should be provided when necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development of the Section 24 Specific Plan.
12-1962
1-7
Traffic signals will be warranted and shall be installed along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive at the following five site access intersections to maintain acceptable levels of service in conjunction with adjacent development:
• The Westin Resort Villas @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13], • Street “C” @ Ramon Road [Intersection 18],
• Street “D” @ Ramon Road [Intersection 19],
• Bob Hope Drive @ Street “D” [Intersection 20], and
• Bob Hope Drive @ Street “E” [Intersection 21].
12-1963
2-1

2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
With its unique natural beauty and resources as well as its history as a retirement destination with seasonal tourism, the Coachella Valley has become a world-class resort destination. As many as 100,000 seasonal residents spend the winter months in the Coachella Valley. Another 3.5 million conventioneers and tourists visit the Coachella Valley each year. The year-round agricultural industry in the Coachella Valley has been augmented by a leisure, hospitality, and retail economy that has developed to accommodate tourists and the influx of seasonal residents.

The Riverside County General Plan would change the historical growth pattern of random sprawl by moving toward a pattern of concentrated growth and increased job creation in strategic areas, which provide various transportation options for access to the region. In view of its prominent and centralized location within the Coachella Valley, the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan provides a unique opportunity to implement that vision.

The proposed project would create a vital mixed-use development, within the context of a destination resort community, that is supportive of transit and other alternative transportation modes. The development would be pedestrian-friendly and located within an area where the use of golf carts and NEVs is commonplace and multi-use paths exist and are being expanded to accommodate cycling, pedestrians, and golf carts. The proposed project would be within walking distance of two sites adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad corridor that are being considered for development as a future regional multi-modal transit center. The development would take maximum advantage of the opportunities afforded by the seasonal influx of tourists and part-year residents but also provide a mix of future uses that would support the local community and be economically viable year-round. The Section 24 Specific Plan would provide a variety of housing options and create employment and entertainment opportunities in close proximity, to promote walking and cycling as healthy alternatives to commuting long distances by automobile. Cohesive design elements would protect unique viewsheds and introduce streetscapes with coordinated landscaping to reinforce and enhance community aesthetics. The project would create a safe environment within which the use of alternative transportation modes for short trips would grow over time and continue to be a viable option as the population ages.

2.1 Project Location
Figure 2-1 illustrates the project site in its regional context within the Coachella Valley region of eastern Riverside County, California. The project site is centrally located within the Coachella Valley, which is approximately 45 miles long and 15 miles wide. The Coachella V
alley is separated from the Greater Los Angeles Area to the northwest by the San Gorgonio Pass, through which Interstate 10 (I-10) and the Union Pacific Railroad are the major transportation corridors.

The site is located south of the Union Pacific Railroad corridor and I-10, at the newly constructed Bob Hope Drive interchange. The undeveloped project site is comprised of 577 gross acres entirely within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation. It is within the Rancho Mirage Sphere of Influence in unincorporated Riverside County. The site occupies approximately 90 percent of Section 24, including all the area west of Bob Hope Drive. The adjacent area within Section 24, located south of Ramon Road and east of Bob Hope Drive, is not a part of the project site and is developed as the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa.

Figure 2-2 depicts the project site in its local context. The site is situated between the desert resort cities of Palm Springs (to the west) and Palm Desert (to the east). Cathedral City is located both west and north of the site. The City of Rancho Mirage surrounds the project site on all sides and the Specific Plan area is an island of unincorporated land.

The site is bounded by and has frontage on four existing arterial streets. It extends south of Ramon Road to Dinah Shore Drive and east of Los Alamos Road to Bob Hope Drive. It is bordered to the south and west by the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort and Mission Hills community. The Desert Ridge Shopping Center is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive. The Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa is located south of Ramon Road and east of Bob Hope Drive, within the portion of Section 24 that is not a part of the project site.

2.2 Land Ownership Within the Section 24 Specific Plan Area The proposed Specific Plan would establish the 8 planning areas shown in Figure 2-3 for the purposes of planning and regulating land use. A total of 120 gross acres along the south side of Ramon Road (primarily within Planning Areas 1 through 3) are owned by the Tribe. The 97 gross acres located immediately west of and adjacent to Bob Hope Drive (within Planning Areas 4, 5, and 6) are allotted to members of t he Tribe and under contract to be acquired by the Tribe. The 40- 12-1964
Scale: 1" = 2.5 Miles Endo Engineering
Indian
Wells
Palm
Desert
Rancho
Mirage
Cathedral
City
Palm
Springs
La Quinta
Indio
Coachella
Thousand
Palms
Vista Chino
Ramon Road
Palm Canyon Drive Indian Canyon Drive
Gene Autry Trail
Varner Road
Dinah Shore Drive
Gerald Ford Drive
Frank Sinatra Drive
Country Club Drive
Fred Waring Drive
Bob Hope Drive
DaVall Drive
30th
Avenue
Landau Boulevard
Palm Drive
Date Palm Drive
Thousand
Palms
Canyon
Road
Dillon Road
Monterey Avenue
Portola Av.

Cook Street
Washington Boulevard
Jefferson Street
Monroe Street
Jackson Street
Van Buren Street
Highway 111
Highway 111
Avenue 44
Avenue 42
Dillon
Road
Mountain
View Road
Highway 111
Pines to
Palms
Highway
Ramon Road
Avenue 48
Interstate 10
State Route 86s Interstate 10
Figure 2-1
Regional Location
Project Site
Joshua Tree
National Park
Coachella Valley
Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation
Plan Area
Palm
Springs
International
Airport
Eisenhower
Memorial
Hospital
College
of the
Desert
Legend
Freeway Interchange
City
Community
12-1965
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
North City
Extended
Specific Plan
North City
Specific Plan
Section 13
Specific Plan
Agua Caliente
Casino
Resort Spa
Section 19
Specific Plan
North City
Specific Plan
North City
Specific Plan
North City
Specific Plan
City of Palm Desert
Section 13
Specific Plan
Agua Caliente
Casino
Resort Spa
Section 19
Specific Plan
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner RoadInterstate 10Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.

Vista Chino
Da Vall Dr.

Date Palm Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
Frank Sinatra Dr.

Mission
Hills Project Site
City of Cathedral City
City of Rancho Mirage
Cathedral City
High School
Figure 2-2
Vicinity Map
City of Palm Desert
Rio Del Sol Road
Rattler Road
Key Largo Ave.

Rancho
Mirage
High
School
Mission Hills
Country Club
Thousand Palms
Legend
Project Site
City of Rancho Mirage
The WestinResort Villas
WestinMission
Hills Resort
Via Bella
Desert Ridge
Center
12-1966
Street
B
Street
A
Street C Street D
Casino
Street D
Street E
The Westin
Resort Villas
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills
5 6
8 9
11 12 13 14
20 21
22 23
18 19
Source: MSA Consulting, Inc.; Section 24 Specific Plan Scale: 1” = 975 ‘ Figure 2-3
Proposed Land Use
Site Access and Internal Circulation
12-1967
2-2
acre parcel located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive (Planning Area 7) is allotted to members of the Tribe. The remaining 320 gross acres within the site are located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Los Alamos Road and Dinah Shore Drive (within Planning Area 8) and allotted to members of the Tribe. This area is under contract to be acquired by Pulte Home Corporation/SCC Rancho Mirage Holdings LP and developed as an active adult residential community for residents aged 55 and above.

2.3 Existing Agua Caliente Land Use Ordinance Designations The northernmost 120 acres within the site, located south of Ramon Road (primarily within Planning Areas 1 through 3) are designated “Tribal Enterprise” in the Agua Caliente Land Use Ordinance (amended in January 2011). Future land uses within areas designated Tribal Enterprise are subject to Tribal Council determination. The remainder of the site is designated “Land Use Contract,” a designation applied to land allotted to individual members of the tribe. Future land uses in areas designated Land Use Contract are defined by the applicable city/county zoning code.

2.4 Existing County and City General Plan Land Use Designations Riverside County General Plan and Western Coachella Valley Area Plan The Riverside County General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan (October 2003) include three land use designations within the project site: CR, CT, MDR. The “Commercial Retail” (CR) designation applies to the 120 gross acres located along the south side of Ramon Road (within Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3). This designation has a building intensity range of 0.20 to 0.35 FAR and includes local and regional serving retail and service uses. 1 A “Commercial Tourist” (CT) designation applies to 217 gross acres including: 57 acres along the west side of Bob Hope Drive in Planning Areas 4 and 6; 40 acres on the northwest corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Dinah Shore Drive in Planning Area 7; and 120 acres within Planning Area 8. The CT designation has a building intensity range of 0.20 to 0.35 FAR and reflects tourist-related commercial land uses including: hotels, golf courses, and recreational activities.

The Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) assumes a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.35 for non- residential land uses designated CR and CT. At the maximum permitted building intensity allowed under the land use designations in the Western C oachella Valley Area Plan, the site could be developed with approximately 3.85 million square feet of non-residential building space. This building area would accommodate local and regional serving retail and service uses as well as tourist commercial (hotel, visitor-serving commercial, recreation/amusement) uses. The trip-generation potential of commercial retail and tourist commercial development on-site at the maximum intensity allowed by the CR and CT designations would be 78,330 weekday trips. RIVTAM reflects land uses in specific plans, general plans, and zoning; however, the future growth assumed for the horizon year 2035 in RIVTAM was constrained by the SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast distribution. Consequently, all of the potential future trip generation associated with buildout of the City and County General Plans is not included in the RIVTAM model.

A “Medium Density Residential” (MDR) designation applies to 240 gross acres within the site including 200 acres within Planning Area 8 and 40 acres within Planning Areas 4 and 5. This designation allows a residential density of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. A total of 240 gross acres within the site could be developed with up 1,200 single-family detached/attached dwelling units, under the MDR land use designation of the site shown in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. These dwelling units have a potential trip generation of 10,230 weekday trips. The total trip generation of the site if developed at the maximum intensity/density allowed by the Riverside County General Plan would be 88,560 unadjusted weekday trips.

The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan
The Rancho Mirage General Plan includes three land use designations within the project site: C-C, R-H, and R-M. The “Community Commercial” (C-C) designation (with a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.35) applies to 75 net acres located south of and adjacent to Ramon Road within Planning Areas 2 and 3. This designation allows regional and community commercial shopping centers and hotels. With a maximum building gross floor area of 1,143,450 square feet, the area designated Community Commercial, could generate up to 33,100 weekday trips.

1 The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the amount of non-residential building square footage in relation to the size of the lot (i.e., the net area of the parcel in square feet). RIVTAM is consistent with the RCIP socioeconomic assumptions and methodology, which convert all gross acreage with non-residential land use designations in the Riverside County General Plan to net acreage (by assuming that 75 percent of the gross area would be developable and 25 percent would be reserved for roads, right-of-way, easements, etc.) prior to determining the associated building area and employment. 12-1968
2-3
A “High Density Residential” (R-H) designation applies to 39 net acres within Planning Area 1. This designation would allow a density of 4 to 9 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 351 single-family attached or multi-family dwelling units. Based upon the trip-generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation (2008), this area could generate up to 1,920 weekday trips. A “Medium Density Residential” (R-M) designation applies to the remaining 414 net acres within the site. This designation would allow up to four dwelling units per acre or a maximum of 1,656 single- family detached dwelling units. Based upon the trip-generation rates published by the ITE, this area could generate up to 13,760 weekday trips.

The two residential land use designations for the site in the Rancho Mirage General Plan would permit up to 2,007 dwelling units to be developed with the potential to generate up to 15,680 weekday trips. With up to 33,100 non-residential trips and 15,680 residential trips, development within the site at the maximum density and intensity allowed by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan could generate up to 48,780 unadjusted weekday trips.

Consistency With General Plan Land Use Designations
Table 2-1 summarizes the maximum residential and non-residential development within the project site for three conditions:
(1) proposed by the Section 24 Specific Plan, (2) allowed by the Riverside County General Plan , and (3) allowed by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would allow more dwelling units than the existing City and County General Plans. However, the initial phase of 1,200 age-restricted dwellings proposed for active adults (age 55 and above) would generate substantially fewer trips than conventional single-family detached dwellings. As a result, the total number of residential weekday trips generated by the 2,406 dwelling units proposed would be slightly less than the trips generated by the 1,200 conventional (not age-restricted) single-family dwellings allowed under the Riverside County General Plan and 35 percent less than the number trips generated by the maximum allowed number of residential dwelling units allowed by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. The residential component of the proposed project would generate 5,590 fewer residential trips on weekdays than the maximum number of residential dwellings allowed by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan.

Consistent with the CR and CT land use designations shown for the site in the Riverside County General Plan , the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would guide the development of tourist-oriented commercial, local serving retail and service uses, professional offices, entertainment, and hotel uses. The maximum proposed non-residential building floor area would be

18.6 percent less than the maximum allowed by the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. Since the number of trips generated would be a function of the total size of the non-residential building gross floor space developed, the proposed project would be expected to generate approximately 18.6 percent fewer non-residential trips on weekdays than the maximum allowed by the Riverside County General Plan designations. However, the area proposed as non-residential land uses with the project would be nearly twice the area designated C-C in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. As a result, the proposed project would generate nearly twice the number of non-residential trips on weekdays anticipated by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. 2
The Section 24 Specific Plan would allow development with the potential to generate substantially more weekday trips than the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan designations and substantially fewer trips than the Riverside County General Plan designations. The proposed density of the multi-family residential dwellings within the site would be twice the highest density allowed by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan suggests that higher residential densities may be appropriate in special circumstances or where conditions would support the densities, such as planned communities, affordable housing, and senior housing in close proximity to commercial, medical, and other supportive land uses. Residential communities developed through the Specific Plan process allow creative and flexible planning where smaller units and higher densities could provide a wider range of residential product types with integrated access and private internal roadways as well as facilities supportive of a variety of alternative transportation modes. By their very nature, Specific Plans for large and complex mixed-use developments can create opportunities to provide development amenities beyond those that would be feasible in smaller, more conventional developments.

2 Unadjusted trips have not been reduced to reflect the internal trip interactions that occur within a mixed-use development or pass-by trips attracted to the site from the traffic that would be passing the site on adjacent streets without the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan. 12-1969
2-4
Table 2-1
Section 24 Specific Plan
Compared to County/City General Plan Land Uses
Land Use Type/Parameter Section 24 Specific Plan Riverside County G.P. Rancho Mirage G.P.

NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
- Area (Gross) 177 Acres 337 Acres 80 Acres
- Net Area With Designation 149 Net Acres 252.75 Net Acres 75 Net Acres - Floor Area Ratioa (Max.) 0.48 0.35 0.35
- Building Gross Floor Area (Max.) 3,138,600 S.F. 3,853,427 S.F. 1,143,450 S.F. - Employmentb (Max.) 6,277 Jobs 7,707 Jobs 2,287 Jobs
- Weekday Trips Generatedc (Max.) 63,800 Trips 78,330 Trips 33,100 Trips

RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Med. Density Residential Area
- Site Area With Designation 312 Net Acres 240 Gross Acres 414 Net Acres - Density Allowedd (Max.) 4 DU/Net Acre 5 DU/Gross Acre 4 DU/Net Acre - Maximum Dwelling Units Allowed 1,200 SF Sr. Adult Units 1,200 SF Units 1,656 SF Units - Weekday Trips Generatedc 4,480 Trips 10,230 Trips 13,760 Trips High Density Residential Area
- Site Area With Designation 67 Net Acres -- 39 Net Acres - Density Allowedd (Max.) 18 DU/Net Acre -- 9 DU/Net Acre - Dwelling Units Allowed (Max.) 1,206 MFA Units -- 351 MFA Units - Weekday Trips Generated 5,610 Trips -- 1,920 Trips
Subtotal Residential Area
- Dwelling Units (Max.) 2,406 DU 1,200 DU 2,007 DU
- Weekday Trips Generatedc 10,090 Trips 10,230 Trips 15,680 Trips - Populatione (Max.) 4,331 3,564 5,603
UNADJUSTED WEEKDAY TRIPSf 73,890 Trips 88,560 Trips 48,780 Trips a. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the amount of non-residential building gross floor area (in square feet) divided by the net area of the parcel (in square feet). The RCIP and RIVTAM assume that the net acreage is 75% of the gross acreage with commercial land use designations in the Riverside County General Plan. FAR values for the Commercial Retail designation ranged from a low of 0.20 to a probable value of 0.23 and a maximum value of 0.35.

For areas designated Commercial Tourist, RIVTAM FAR values ranged from a low of 0.20 to a probable value of 0.25 and a maximum value of 0.35. A maximum FAR of 0.35 applies to those areas designated Community Commercial in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan per Section 17.10.020 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. The FAR shown for the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan is the average value for all of the non-residential development combined. Minor recent changes to the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan have altered the acreages and land use densities without altering the total proposed residential and non-residential uses, or projected trip generation. The maximum FAR and residential densities will be defined in the Section 24 Specific Plan.
b. For the RCIP and RIVTAM, employment estimates were based upon an employment density factor of 500 S.F. of building gross floor area per employee for areas designated Commercial Retail (CR) and Commercial Tourist (CT) in the Riverside County General Plan. c. The ITE regression equations in Trip Generation (8th Edition, 2008) associated with Land Use Codes 820, 210, 230, and 251 were used to estimate the weekday trip generation potential associated with commercial shopping centers, conventional single-family detached dwellings, multiple-family attached dwelling units, and single-family detached dwellings for active senior adults (age 55 and above), respectively. All weekday trip generation estimates shown reflect “unadjusted” trips (i.e., internal and external trips without reductions associated with internal trip capture or pass-by trips). d. The 1,200 active adult single-family detached age-restricted residential dwellings proposed in Planning Area 8 would have a density of 3.75 dwelling units per gross acre (3.85 units per net acre). The RCIP and RIVTAM use the density allowed and the gross acreage to estimate the number of dwelling units allowed.
e. The population density was assumed to be 2.97 persons/household per the Land Use Element of the Riverside County General Plan. The City population assumed 2.97 persons/household for Medium Density Residential and 1.95 persons/household for High Density Residential dwellings. The Section 24 Specific Plan population assumed the age-restricted single-family units would reduce the overall population density to 1.8 persons/household. f. The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Traffic Model projected weekday productions and attractions for the site using a different methodology. A trip- generation rate of 350 weekday trips per acre of C-C and a residential trip-generation rate of 4.6 weekday trips per dwelling unit were assumed for the R-H and R-M designations, with an average residential density of 3.2 DU/Acre assumed for R-M areas and 8.0 DU/Acre assumed for R-H areas, rather than the maximum density allowed.
12-1970
2-5

2.5 Project Description
The Section 24 Specific Plan would establish a unified vision for the project site to guide the future development of a cohesive and complementary mix of land uses consistent with both local and regional planning goals. The Section 24 Specific Plan provides a comprehensive set of development standards and design guidelines for use in the future development of a mixed-use regional destination resort community with residential uses located near employment opportunities, tourist-oriented commercial and local-serving retail and service uses, professional office space, hotel, and entertainment uses.

Figure 2-3 shows the location of the various planning areas within the site as well as the proposed land uses and the site access and internal circulation system planned to support the development. A maximum of 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3,138,600 square feet of non-residential development (retail commercial, entertainment, office, hotel) would be allowed by the Section 24 Specific Plan that would complement surrounding existing and planned land uses in the City of Rancho Mirage. A total of 528 net acres on-site would ultimately be developed, as shown in Table 2-2. Approximately 49 acres of the site would be rights-of-way associated with streets and highways.

Non-residential land uses would be constructed along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive. Single-family detached residential uses would be constructed north of Dinah Shore Drive and east of Los Alamos Road in a gated community for active adults. Multiple-family attached residential development is proposed in five areas located between the lower density single-family residential uses in Planning Area 8 and the higher intensity non-residential land uses along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive.

The proposed development within each Planning Area is summarized in Table 2-2. The initial phase of the development would include up to 1,200 single-family residential dwelling units for active seniors (aged 55 and above) within a gated community in Planning Area 8. Although no timeframe has been established to date for Planning Areas 1 through 7, this area is being programmatically planned in conjunction with the Section 24 Specific Plan to coordinate streets and other necessary infrastructure and promote land use compatibility.

A total of 67 net acres of multiple-family attached residential development is proposed within five Planning Areas at a density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre. Within this area up to 1,206 multi-family attached dwelling units would be allowed.

Although multi-family residential units w ould be an allowed use above the retail commercial development under the Mixed Use Core designation of Planning Area 2A, a maximum of 1,206 multi-family residential units would be allowed within the Section 24 Specific Plan area.

The development of up to 1,271,600 square feet of non-residential building floor area would be permitted on the 73 net acres designated as Resort Flex in Planning Areas 1A, 4, and 6A. This development would include a mix of hotel, retail commercial, and entertainment uses. A total of 51 acres are designated for retail commercial uses in Planning Areas 3 and 7A. The development of up to 777,000 square feet of retail building area would be allowed in this area. The 25 net acres designated Mixed Use Core in Planning Area 2A would accommodate up to 1,090,000 square feet of community retail commercial uses, office uses, and possibly attached residential units above the commercial uses.

Proposed Site Access and Internal Circulation
Figure 2-3 shows the site access and internal circulation system planned to support the proposed land uses within the Section 24 Specific Plan area. The letter designations assigned to the internal streets (Street “A” through Street “E”) for ease of reference within this report are shown in Figure 2-3. The number assigned to each existing key intersection for reference in this report is shown on page 3-1 and shown in Figure 3-1. The future full-turn site access intersections and their intersection numbers are shown in Figure 2-3 including each intersection number and the letter designation assigned to each proposed internal street.

Initial Phase Access
The initial phase of development would include the development of up to 1,200 single-family homes for active adults (aged 55 and above) within Planning Area 8. The initial phase would be accessed via full-turn access connections proposed opposite two existing T-type intersections: Los Alamos Road at Via Bella [Intersection 8], and the Westin Mission Hills Access at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12]. Ultimately, a third access to Planning Area 8 would be provided by the extension of Casino Road, from Bob Hope Drive to Planning Area 8. This extension of Casino Road would not be constructed by Pulte Homes as part of the improvements associated with the development of the active adult community in the initial phase. 12-1971
2-6
Table 2-2
Section 24 Specific Plan Land Use Summarya
Planning
Area
Land Useb
Designation
Area
(Net Acres)
Intensity/Density c Maximum d
Development
Planning Area 1A Resort Flex 25 0.40 FAR 435.6 T.S.F.

Planning Area 1B Residential (MF) 10 18 D.U./Acre 180 D.U.

Planning Area 2A Mixed Use Core 25 1.00 FAR 1,090.0 T.S.F.

Planning Area 2B Residential (MF) 10 18 D.U./Acre 180 D.U.

Planning Area 3 Retail 26 0.35 FAR 396.0 T.S.F.

Planning Area 4 Resort Flex 29 0.40 FAR 505.0 T.S.F.

Planning Area 5 Residential (MF) 27 18 D.U./Acre 486 D.U.

Planning Area 6A Resort Flex 19 0.40 FAR 331.0 T.S.F.

Planning Area 6B Residential (MF) 10 18 D.U./Acre 180 D.U.

Planning Area7A Retail 25 0.35 FAR 381.0 T.S.F.

Planning Area 7B Residential (MF) 10 18 D.U./Acre 180 D.U.

Planning Area 8
(Initial Phase)
Active Adult (Age 55+)
Residential (SF)
312 4 D.U./Acre 1,200 D.U.

Total 528
3,138,600 S.F.
1,200 SF Units
1,206 MF Units
a. Source: Meridian Consulting LLC. “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan, Riverside County.” January 14, 2014. In addition to the net acreage, 49 acres would be associated with roadway rights-of-way for a total gross acreage of 577.0 acres. Minor recent changes to the Section 24 Specific Plan have altered the acreages and land use densities for the individual Planning Areas, without altering the total proposed residential and non-residential uses. The maximum development for each Planning Area will be defined in the Section 24 Specific Plan.
b. MF=Multiple-Family. SF=Single-Family.
c. FAR=Floor Area Ratio. D.U.=Dwelling Units.
d. T.S.F.=Thousand Square Feet of Building Floor Area
The timing of the construction of Casino Road on-site, between Planning Area 8 and Bob Hope Drive, is currently unknown.

The extension of Casino Road to Planning Area 8 may not occur until adjacent land within Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, and/or 5 is developed. As a result, the evaluation of the traffic impacts associated with the completion of the initial phase of development assumed that Casino Road would not be constructed between Planning Area 8 and Bob Hope Drive by the year 2022.
12-1972
2-7
Access Plan to Support Development Upon Project Completion The site access plan proposed to support the ultimate development within the project site would include two existing signalized intersections (Intersections 9 and 12). Five future signalized full-turn site access intersections (Intersections 13, 18, 19, 20, and 21) are proposed. Three unsignalized full-turn site access intersections (Intersections 8, 22 and 23) along Los Alamos Road would serve site traffic. Seven future right-in/right-out site access connections are proposed in conjunction with the proposed project; three on Ramon Road, three on Bob Hope Drive, and one on Dinah Shore Drive. All of these right-in/right-out site access points would all be associated with phases of site development after the initial phase is completed.

The two future signalized full-turn site access intersections proposed on Ramon Road, between Los Alamos Road and Bob Hope Drive, (Intersections 18 and 19) would be located opposite the future access intersections associated with the adopted City of Rancho Mirage Section 13 Specific Plan to the north. The two future signalized full-turn site access intersections proposed on Bob Hope Drive, between Casino Road and Dinah Shore Drive, (Intersections 20 and 21) would be located opposite future access intersections associated with the adopted City of Rancho Mirage Section 19 Specific Plan to the east.

Right-In/Right-Out Access Connections
The proposed right-in/right-out access connections were designated by letter in clockwise order, beginning at the northwest corner of the site, as shown in Figure 4-6. Access A through Access C are proposed from west to east along Ramon Road to serve Planning Areas 1A, 2A, and 3, respectively. Access D through Access F are proposed from north to south along Bob Hope Drive to serve Planning Areas 4, 6A, and 7A, respectively. Access G is proposed on Dinah Shore Drive, west of Bob Hope Drive, to serve Planning Area 7A.

Access to Ramon Road
The proposed site access plan for Ramon Road would include the use of the existing signalized intersection of Los Alamos Road with Ramon Road [Intersection 5] to accommodate site traffic destined to and from Planning Areas 1A, 1B and 8. A future signalized full-turn site access would be constructed on the south side of Ramon Road, one-quarter mile east of Los Alamos Road, at Street “C” [Intersection 18] to serve both the Resort uses in Planning Area 1 and the most intense Mixed Use Core uses proposed in Planning Area 2. A future signalized full-turn site access would also be constructed on the south side of Ramon Road, one-quarter mile west of Bob Hope Drive, at Street “D” [Intersection 19] to serve both the more intense Mixed Use Core uses in Planning Area 2 and the Retail uses in Planning Area 3. Street “D” would be improved within the project site as a four-lane divided Minor Arterial Roadway with a raised landscape median (16 feet in width) within a 110- foot right-of-way. Sidewalks (5-feet in width) and bicycle lanes (5-feet in width) would be incorporated on both sides of this roadway.

Access to Bob Hope Drive
The proposed access along Bob Hope Drive would include the construction of a fourth intersection leg at the existing signalized three-leg intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Casino (Intersection 9). This intersection currently has signal mast arms and signal heads on all four approaches. The westerly extension of Casino Road would provide a direct and convenient route to and from the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa for all transportation modes. It would also substantially reduce the volume of site traffic turning right onto and left across Ramon Road, west of Bob Hope Drive.

Two future signalized full-turn intersections are proposed at one-quarter-mile intervals along Bob Hope Drive, between the existing signalized intersections at Dinah Shore Drive and at Casino. The future intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Street “D” (Intersection 20) would connect the proposed internal boulevard through the project site from Ramon Road to Bob Hope Drive. Intersection 20 would be located opposite the street proposed to serve the Section 19 Specific Plan area (east of Bob Hope Drive). The future intersection proposed at Street “E” (Intersection 21) would be located between Planning Areas 6 and 7, opposite the future access proposed to serve the Section 19 Specific Plan area to the east.

Access to Dinah Shore Drive
The existing signalized intersection of Los Alamos Road with Dinah Shore Drive (Intersection 11) is located on the southwest corner of the initial phase of the Section 24 Specific Plan. The primary gated entry for the initial phase of development would be located approximately 1,770 feet east of Los Alamos Road, opposite the existing signalized access on Dinah Shore Drive 12-1973
2-8
associated with the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort (Intersection 12). This access would require the construction of a north leg at the existing intersection and the modification of the existing traffic control signals.

The future access for Planning Area 7B would be located approximately 1,220 feet west of Bob Hope Drive, opposite the existing unsignalized access on Dinah Shore Drive associated with the Westin Mission Hills Resort Villas (Intersection 13).

The ultimate site traffic volumes at this intersection are expected to meet traffic signal warrants. Traffic signal control would be constructed at this intersection in conjunction with the proposed site access improvements. This signalized intersection would be approximately 2,300 feet east of the signalized Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort access (Intersection 12).

Access to Los Alamos Road
The proposed project would take access to Los Alamos Road at three proposed unsignalized full-turn site access intersections. The initial phase of the proposed project would take access to Los Alamos Road opposite Via Bella at the existing unsignalized intersection [Intersection 8]. This intersection is located approximately 1,430 feet south of Ramon Road and 3,860 feet north of Dinah Shore Drive. It would be two-way stop controlled in the future.

Subsequent phases of development would take access to Los Alamos Road for the multiple-family residential land uses proposed within Planning Area 1B via Street “A” [Intersection 22]. This future site access connection on Los Alamos Road is not expected to accommodate sufficient future traffic volumes to warrant traffic control signals. The proposed Resort uses within Planning Area 1 would take access to Los Alamos Road via Street “B” [Intersection 23]. This intersection is also expected to be two-way stop controlled.

Street “D” (Proposed Internal Boulevard)
Street “D” would provide two travel lanes in each direction, separated by a raised landscape median 16 feet in width. This internal multi-modal corridor would extend from its signalized intersection with Ramon Road to its signalized intersection with Bob Hope Drive. It would be aligned with Planning Areas 3 and 4 to the east and Planning Areas 2, 5 and 6 to the west.

The alignment would facilitate the phased construction of various Planning Areas within the Specific Plan without interrupting access to the initial phase or previous phases of the development.

Street “D” would be accessible to automobiles, service vehicles, emergency vehicles, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), golf carts, and neighborhood circulator vehicles. This boulevard would provide landscaped buffers between the 5-foot sidewalks proposed on both sides of the roadbed right-of-way/property line. A 5-foot wide on-street Class II bicycle lane would be provided on each side of Street “D”, separated from the travel lanes by a 2-foot buffer. The bicycle lanes would be visually separated from the sidewalks by an 8-foot landscape buffer.

Proposed Neighborhood Circulator Service
Neighborhood circulator vehicles (NCVs) are envisioned as a viable means of providing free public transportation services for the community over a relatively small area via shuttles circulating on a fixed route with an established schedule. A typical mini-bus that could be used for a neighborhood circulator service would accommodate 19 passengers and provide two wheelchair positions, a wheelchair lift, and a rack for bicycles. The neighborhood circulator vehicles would improve local access for individuals with limited mobility.

Project Phasing
The initial phase of development would include the 1,200 dwelling units proposed within Planning Area 8 as a gated community for active adult aged 55 and above. The development within Planning Area 8 is expected to require six to eight years to complete. Full development and occupancy of the initial phase of the proposed development was assumed to occur by the year 2022.

No time frame has been established to date for development within Planning Areas 1 through 7. For the purposes of this traffic impact analysis, full development and occupancy of the entire project was assumed to occur by the horizon year of 2035 used in the RIVTAM model. This is a conservative assumption made for the purpose of assessing the potential traffic impact of the proposed project. The Agua Caliente Tribe currently has no plans or timing defined for development of Planning Areas 1 through 7, and it is anticipated that development of the uses that would be allowed by the Specific Plan would extend beyond 2035.
12-1974
3-1

3.0 AREA CONDITIONS

3.1 Study Area and Key Intersections
The area of potential influence and key intersections to be evaluated were identified through coordination with Ms. Margaret Parks, the Director of Planning and Natural Resources for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians , Mr. Bud Kopp, the City of Rancho Mirage Planning Manager, and Mr. Bill Enos, the Rancho Mirage City Engineer. The study area extends east of Da Vall Drive to Monterey Avenue and south of I-10 to Gerald Ford Drive, as shown in Figure 3-1. The seventeen existing key intersections include:
[1] Bob Hope Drive @ the I-10 Westbound Ramps, [10] Da Vall Drive @ Dinah Shore Drive, [2] Bob Hope Drive @ the I-10 Eastbound Ramps, [11] Los Alamos Road @ Dinah Shore Drive, [3] Da Vall Drive @ Ramon Road, [12] Westin Mission Hills Access @ Dinah Shore Drive, [4] Rattler Road @ Ramon Road, [13] Westin Resort Villas Access @ Dinah Shore Drive, [5] Los Alamos Road @ Ramon Road, [14] Bob Hope Drive @ Dinah Shore Drive, [6] Bob Hope Drive @ Ramon Road, [15] Key Largo Avenue @ Dinah Shore Drive, [7] I-10 Eastbound Ramp @ Ramon Road, [16] Monterey Avenue @ Dinah Shore Drive, and [8] Los Alamos Road @ Via Bella, [17] Bob Hope Drive @ Gerald Ford Drive. [9] Bob Hope Drive @ Casino,
Five of the existing key intersections are located on Ramon Road (including one at the I-10 eastbound onramp). Seven of the existing key intersections are located on Dinah Shore Drive. Six of the existing key intersections are located on Bob Hope Drive (including two at the new I-10 interchange). Two of the existing key intersections are located on Da Vall Drive and two are located on Los Alamos Road. One existing key intersection is located on Gerald Ford Drive.

The key intersections are referenced throughout this report with the north-south street name first, followed by the east-west street name. The existing key intersections were numbered from north to south and from west to east. This provided graphic continuity to facilitate visual comparisons between neighboring intersections.

All of the proposed future full-turn site access intersections were evaluated to ensure that they will provide acceptable levels of service in the horizon year 2035 with the project completed. The internal streets were labeled from Street “A” to Street “E”, as shown in Figure 2-3. The proposed future f ull-turn site access intersections were numbered for reference as key intersections 18 through 23 (see Figure 2-3) and include:
[18] Street “C”@ Ramon Road, [21] Bob Hope Drive @ Street “E”, [19] Street “D”@ Ramon Road, [22] Los Alamos Road @ Street “A” (the multiple-family access), and [20] Bob Hope Drive @ Street “D”, [23] Los Alamos Road @ Street “B” (the resort access).

Future internal streets are proposed opposite four existing tee intersections [Intersection 8, 9, 12 and 13]. Rather than assigning these internal streets letter designations, these intersections were referenced by the existing street names.

An operational analysis was not conducted for the proposed right-in/right-out site access points. These access connections will have few conflicting movements and most motorists passing through them will experience relatively little or no control delay. Even though the peak hour delay at these access points was not evaluated, the future site traffic volumes were identified (see Figure 4-3). For reference, the proposed right-in/right-out site access points were designated beginning at the northwest corner of the site and continuing in a clockwise direction to the southeast corner of the site as Access A through Access G.

3.2 Study Area Land Use
The City of Rancho Mirage is largely comprised of low-density residential land uses and golf resort communities accessed via a grid network of arterials streets. The arterial streets provide connections to the neighboring cities of Cathedral City and Palm Springs to the west and Palm Desert and Indian Wells to the east as well as the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Popular destinations within the study area include: the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa, the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort and Spa, the Rancho Mirage High School, the Braille Institute of America, the Mission Hills Country Club, the Monterey Shore Shopping Center, the Monterey MarketPlace, the Desert Gateway regional commercial center, the Children’s Discovery Museum, and Sunnylands (the Annenberg Estate). 12-1975
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.

Da Vall Dr. Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
Project
Site
Casino
WestinResort VillasWestin
Mission Hills
Via
Bella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
1 5
2 3 4 6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 Legend
Existing Key Intersection
Project Site
1 Figure 3-1
Study Area and Key Intersections
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
12-1976
3-2
Development within the City of Rancho Mirage includes: major resort hotels, vacation rentals, resort-based golf courses, upscale retail centers, and professional services related largely to meeting the needs generated by permanent residents and seasonal tourism. Rancho Mirage has numerous golf resorts and country clubs including: Tamarisk, the Springs, Sunrise, Omni Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa, the Mission Hills Country Club, Rancho Las Palmas, Rancho Mirage, Morningside, Mission Hills North, and Tuscania. Commercial office and high-end retail centers like The River shopping complex are located south of the study area, along Highway 111. The Eisenhower Medical Center and the Betty Ford Center are also located south of the study area.

There are no industrial land uses within the City of Rancho Mirage. However, light industrial development is located east of Monterey Avenue and south of Interstate 10, in the neighboring City of Palm Desert. Dinah Shore Drive provides access to this area. A light industrial area is also located north of Interstate 10 and east of Bob Hope Drive/Rio Del Sol Road in the Thousand Palms community.

The 2010 United States Census reported that 7,089 housing units (50 percent) of the 14,243 housing units in Rancho Mirage were owner occupied. Renters occupied 1,740 housing units (12 percent). The remaining 38 percent of the housing units (5,414 units) were vacant homeowner units (second homes) or vacant rental units. The homeowner vacancy rate was 5 percent and the rental vacancy rate was 17.2 percent. In 2010, 19 percent of the population (17,154) lived in rental housing units and 81 percent of the population lived in owner-occupied housing units. The owner-occupied housing units had an average of 1.95 residents per household and the rentals had an average of 1.90 residents per rental unit.

Nearly 35 percent of the households were occupied by only one resident. More than 22 percent were occupied by one resident aged 65 or older. The median age in Rancho Mirage in 2010 was 62.3 years and 44 percent of the population was 65 years of age or older. The average family size was 2.46. Only 11.7 percent of the 8,829 households had children under the age of 18 living in them.

The area east of the site surrounding the intersection of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive is developed with numerous big box retail stores (Costco, Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, Home Depot, home improvement stores, Joann’s Craft Store) that w
ill attract consumers from the project site in the future. The Monterey MarketPlace, the Monterey Shores Shopping Center, the Desert Gateway Shopping Center, and the SBB College are all located south of I-10 at the Monterey Avenue Interchange. A Lowe’s Home Improvement Center is located east of Monterey Avenue and north of Gerald Ford Drive. The Pavilions Shopping Center is located on the southwest corner at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Gerald Ford Drive.

A Fire Station and the Children’s Discovery Museum are located south of Gerald Ford Drive, west of this commercial center.

Desert Ridge Plaza, a neighborhood shopping center with a Walgreens Drug Store as an anchor, is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive.

Bob Hope Drive provides access to the south for trips associated with development within the City of Rancho Mirage such as Sunnylands (the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Estate), the Eisenhower Memorial Hospital and Medical Center, The River commercial/entertainment complex, and the Shops on El Paseo. Da Vall Drive, Bob Hope Drive, and Monterey Avenue provide access to Highway 111, which connects several cities and popular destinations within the Coachella Valley.

Highway 111 also provides access to the Palm Desert Civic Center and the College of the Desert via Fred Waring Drive.

The Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa occupies a 36-acre parcel within Section 24 that is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road. This adjacent development is not a part of the project site but will be connected to the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan area via the future extension of Casino, west of Bob Hope Drive, between the retail development proposed for Planning Area 3 and the future resort uses in Planning Area 4. The signalized intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Casino will provide a direct and convenient connection between the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa and the future residential and non-residential development proposed within the project site designed to encourage trips between the project site and the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa while minimizing vehicular travel on Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive.

The Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa includes: a 340-room hotel; 70,000 square feet of gaming floor space with 1,800 slots machines; a 2,000 seat theater for live concert p
erformances; 13,000 square feet of flexible meeting space; six dining venues; a resort pool, spa, and fitness center; and 2,500 parking spaces in a three-story parking structure. This development takes access to and from Ramon Road via a right-in/right-out driveway located east of Bob Hope Drive. It also takes access to Bob Hope Drive, via a signalized full-turn access located at Casino and an unsignalized right-in/right-out driveway located south of Casino.
12-1977
3-3
Existing Land Uses
The 577-acre project site is currently undeveloped. Section 13 is located north of the project site and also undeveloped.

The portion of Section 13 located south of Interstate 10 and north of Ramon Road, on both sides of Bob Hope Drive, was annexed by the City of Rancho Mirage in 2012. The General Plan land use designation for this area is regional interstate commercial, a designation that allows mixed-use development with commercial retail, office, resort hotel and restaurant uses. The City’s General Plan requires the preparation and approval of a Specific Plan prior to development of this area.

Prior to approval, the Section 13 Specific Plan will be subject to environmental review and development review by the City of Rancho Mirage.

The Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort and Spa is located south of the project site at 71333 Dinah Shore Drive, in Rancho Mirage. The main access (key intersection 12) is signalized and located on the south side of Dinah Shore Drive, east of Los Alamos Road. This development includes a hotel with 512 guest rooms, 65,000 square feet of indoor meeting space, 26,000 square feet of outdoor meeting space, a 17,326 square foot ballroom, spa facilities, a fitness center, three swimming pools, a 60-foot water slide, restaurants (signature, café, bar, lounge, grill), two championship golf courses, and seven lighted tennis courts. The Gary Player Signature Golf Course is located west of the project site, within Section 23. The Pete Dye Championship Golf Course is located south of Dinah Shore Drive and west of Bob Hope Drive.

The Westin Mission Hills Resort Villas are also located south of the project site and west of Bob Hope Drive, at 71777 Dinah Shore Drive, Rancho Mirage. This development includes 316 guest rooms, the Restaurant Bella Vista, the Season’s Grill, and poolside grills. Access is via an unsignalized gated entry on the south side of Dinah Shore Drive, opposite Planning Area 7B (key intersection 13).

The area located east of the project site is within the Section 19 Specific Plan area and currently undeveloped. Although the Section 19 Specific Plan was approved by the City of Rancho Mirage in 2010, no development has occurred in Section 19.

The Section 19 Specific Plan includes planned access connections to Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, and Key Largo Avenue. It also includes access to a future overcrossing of Interstate 10 via the northerly extension of Key Largo Avenue.

The intersection of Key Largo Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive is evaluated as key intersection 15.

T
he Rancho Mirage High School was recently constructed north of Ramon Road and west of Rattler Road. It is located on 60 acres west of Rattler Road and north of Ramon Road. The Rancho Mirage High School opened in August 2013 with a Fall 2013 enrollment of 900 students (freshmen and sophomores only). It is projected to have an enrollment of 1,600 students by the year 2016. The 332,000 square foot school is expected to have an ultimate capacity of 2,300 students in grades 9 through 12. It has a 600-seat theater as well as stadium seating for 3,895. It provides 390 staff parking places and 420 parking spaces for students. A 20-acre site for a future elementary school is located west of Rattler Road, immediately north of the Rancho Mirage High School.

The Palm Valley School is located on the west side of Da Vall Drive, north of Dinah Shore Drive. This school accommodates students in grades K-12 and has an enrollment of approximately 400 students. The campus has substantial space for future expansion. The Cathedral City High School is located north of Dinah Shore Drive and west of Plumley Road. The enrollment of 2,800 dropped by approximately 25 percent, following the opening of the new Rancho Mirage High School.

Anticipated Future Development
General Plans identify land uses based upon a 20-year or longer planning horizon. Zoning identifies specific immediate uses of the land to implement the long-term intent of the General Plan. City General Plans have authority over territory located within the city limits. Land within a city’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) can be given land use designations by both the city and the County of Riverside. The city’s designation applies if the land is annexed into the city. Otherwise, the county’s designation prevails. Spheres of influence established by the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission are intended to reflect the probable physical boundaries and service area of cities. The project site is located with the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Mirage.

Near-Term Cumulative Projects Evaluated
The City of Rancho Mirage identified two near-term developments for evaluation with the initial phase of the Section 24 Specific Plan in the year 2022. The traffic associated with each of these two developments was assigned to t he surrounding streets and added to the future year 2022 non-site (through) traffic volumes (shown in Table 4-4, Figures 4-9 and 4-11) and evaluated in Table 5-7.
12-1978
3-4
One near-term cumulative development was Tentative Tract Map 36553 and Preliminary Development Plan 13005 for 122 single-family detached homes on 36.68 acres located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Rattler Road and Ramon Road. These dwellings would take access from Rattler Road.

The second near-term cumulative development was Tentative Parcel Map 31761 and Preliminary Development Plan 07012 (FDP08002) for 9.69 acres located on the southeast corner of Ramon Road and Da Vall Drive. Approximately 6.79 acres would be developed as a single-story physical rehabilitation hospital with 70 beds and 64,768 square feet. It was assumed that this development would have access connections on both Ramon Road and Da Vall Drive.

Long-Term Cumulative Development
The Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) was used to forecast non-site traffic volumes for the future horizon year 2035. Riverside County, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the members of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) have approved RIVTAM as the regional traffic model for Riverside County, including the Coachella Valley. Future traffic projections from RIVTAM represent the best available projections for the study area and the horizon year 2035.

The traffic analysis zones in RIVTAM reflect SCAG modeling by Census Tract. Base year and future land use forecasts provided by individual jurisdictions and Riverside County are used in developing the socio-economic input data required by RIVTAM. The 2035 SCAG population and employment growth projections were allocated by area, based on the existing and proposed future land use forecasts identified by each city. Riverside County planners provided estimates for Tribal lands and unincorporated areas. RIVTAM reflects the transportation network shown in the approved general plans of the jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley.

North City Specific Plan (Cathedral City)
The North City Specific Plan was approved by Cathedral City in 2009. The North City Specific Plan addressed the future development of 4,664 acres located north of Interstate 10, between the future northerly extension of Da Vall Drive and Palm Drive. Approximately 235 acres are designated BP (Business Park). Another 518 acres are designated MU-U (Mixed Use- Urban). A total of 402 acres are designated MU-N (Mixed Use-Neighborhood). A light industrial designation applies to 267 acres. An OS-R (Open Space-Residential) applies to 832 acres. In all, 2,900 acres would remain in OS (Open Space- Conservation).

The North City Specific Plan mixed-use development was projected to require 50 years to complete. No construction activity has been initiated to date on this development. The development is transected by Varner Road and the future alignment of Valley Center Boulevard, both of which are shown aligned parallel to Interstate 10. Access to Interstate 10 would be via four interchanges located at: Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive, Landau Boulevard, Date Palm Drive, and Da Vall Drive. The Interstate 10 interchanges at Landau Boulevard and at Da Vall Drive do not currently exist.

North City Extended Specific Plan (Cathedral City)
The North City Extended Specific Plan was approved in the year 2013 by Cathedral City and included annexation of the 591.38-acre site. This site is located north of I-10 north and south of Varner Road on both sides of Bob Hope Drive. The land uses approved include approximately 65 acres zoned Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U), 116 acres zoned Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MU-N), 74 acres zoned Industrial (I-1), and 240 acres of Open Space (OS). The remaining 96 acres were roadway right-of-way. No construction activity has been initiated to date on this development.

Section 19 Specific Plan (Rancho Mirage)
Section 19 extends north of Dinah Shore Drive, between Bob Hope Drive and Key Largo Avenue. The goal of the planning process for the Section 19 Specific Plan initially involved attracting large retailers within a planned commercial district context. However, the Monterey Avenue corridor in Palm Desert was determined to have absorbed nearly all of the big box retail uses that would have been feasible for the Section 19 Specific Plan area.

On February 18, 2010, the 270-acre Section 19 Specific Plan was approved by the City of Rancho Mirage. The Specific Plan area is located north of Dinah Shore Drive and south of the Union Pacific Railroad, between Bob Hope Drive and Key Largo Avenue. The development plan includes residential uses and non-residential (commercial/retail, office, resort, and mixed- 12-1979
3-5
use) development including an 11-acre public facility. The mixed-use development would include a town center, community retail shops and boutiques, high-end thematic restaurants, medium-density and high-density residential neighborhoods, resort and business hotels, retail space for the sale of furniture and furnishings, designer outlets, and resort recreational uses. To date, no construction activity has been initiated on this development.

3.3 Site Accessibility
Based upon its proximity to the newly constructed Interstate 10 interchange at Bob Hope Drive, the project site benefits from a high level of regional accessibility. With Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, and Los Alamos Road forming the site boundaries, a high level of access is also afforded by the surrounding street system.

3.4 Existing Transportation System
Airport Facilities
Palm Springs International Airport is the largest of the three airports serving the Coachella Valley. This airport is located approximately 3.6 miles west of the project site, within the City of Palm Springs. This commercial airport is located north of Ramon Road and south of Vista Chino, between Gene Autry Trail and Farrell Drive. With connections throughout California and the continental United States, Palm Springs International Airport is the major facility for regional air passenger transportation in the Coachella Valley. It also handles air freight. Heliport access is limited to medical evacuation flights between the Desert Regional Medical Center heliport and the Palm Springs International Airport.

Railroad Facilities
The Union Pacific Railroad line traverses the area south of Interstate 10 and north of the project site. A grade separated railroad crossing exists where Bob Hope Drive crosses over the railroad line, north of the project site. The recently completed I-10 interchange project at Bob Hope Drive included the construction of a new six-lane bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad.

Within Riverside County, freight rail is an important backbone of the goods movement industry. The Union Pacific Railroad provides freight rail service to Riverside County, with up to fifty freight trains per day passing through the area to/from major cities throughout the continental United States.

AMTRAK operates 15 long distance trains on a national network of routes that range in length from 764 to 2,438 miles.

Amtrak operates 70 intercity trains and 100 commuter trains per day in California. AMTRAK provides regional passenger rail and bus service in the Coachella Valley. The only AMTRAK station in Riverside County is located within the City of Palm Springs. AMTRAK provides bus connections on a daily basis to and from the San Bernardino AMTRAK station for other Riverside County areas.

T
he North Palm Springs Amtrak train station is a stop three times per week on AMTRAK’s Sunset Limited passenger service between Los Angeles and New Orleans. Connecting service to Chicago is available from a stop in San Antonio, Texas. The North Palm Springs train station is located 0.6 miles south of Interstate 10, at the intersection of North Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Springs Station Road. AMTRAK does not currently provide commuter rail services.

Existing Roadway and Highway Facilities
The existing transportation system in the study area is shown in Figure 3-2. The traffic control at intersections and the number of mid-block through lanes are shown as well as whether each roadway is divided or undivided. Divided facilities typically include a median, which separates traffic lanes in opposite directions and provides space for left-turn bays at intersections. Undivided facilities typically require motorists making left turns to queue in a through lane, thereby reducing the capacity of the roadway. By prohibiting on-street parking, some undivided roadways can be flared to provide left-turn lanes at intersections. Figure 6-1 shows the existing intersection approach lanes and traffic control type at the key intersections.

Regional travel tends to occur along the major axis of the Coachella Valley. Interstate 10 (I-10) facilitates the movement of vehicles in the Coachella Valley between the northwest and the southeast. I-10 extends from Pacific Coast Highway, in western Los Angeles County, through San Bernardino County and Riverside County. After passing through Blythe, I-10 12-1980
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.

Da Vall Dr. Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
Project
Site
Casino
WestinResort VillasWestin
Mission Hills
Via
Bella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
Figure 3-2
Surrounding Street System
2D
4D
2U
Legend
Number of Through Lanes
D = Divided U = Undivided
Stop Sign
All Way Stop Control
Signalized Intersection
2U
2U
2U
2U
3U
4U 2D
6D 6D 6D
4D
4D 4D 4D
4D
4D 6D 6D
6D
4D
4D
4D 3U5D6D
6D
5D
6D
5D
6D
5D
6D
3D
5D
4D
4D
2U 4D
2U8D
8D
6D4D
6D
5D
6D
6D
4D
4D
4D
4D 4D4D4D
4D
5D
4D
2U
4D
4D 6D
5D
2U
12-1981
3-6
extends to the east across Arizona and the transcontinental United States. The posted speed limit on Interstate 10 in the project vicinity is 70 miles per hour.

Regional access for the project site is currently available from Interstate 10, via the recently completed interchange at Bob Hope Drive. Motorists can access I-10 in both directions via the Bob Hope Drive interchange, which includes a new eight- lane overcrossing at I-10 and new ramps configured as a spread diamond interchange. Motorists from Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, and Thousand Palms who are destined to the east via Interstate 10 can also access the freeway from Ramon Road via the eastbound on-ramp located east of Bob Hope Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. Ramon Road crosses over I-10 on a two-lane bridge structure and was recently signalized at the intersection of the I-10 eastbound on-ramp.

Interstate 10 (I-10) is located one-quarter mile north of the project site and provides regional access. I-10 is a freeway under the jurisdiction of Caltrans with a 70 mph posted speed limit that facilitates the movement of vehicles in the Coachella Valley between the northwest and the southeast. Interstate 10 is currently an eight-lane freeway west of and a six-lane freeway east of the Monterey Avenue interchange. Interstate 10 is accessed from Ramon Road via an eastbound on-ramp [intersection 7]. Diamond interchanges are located at Monterey Avenue, Bob Hope Drive, and Date Palm Drive. The Date Palm Drive interchange is located 3.5 miles northwest of the Bob Hope Drive interchange. The Monterey Avenue interchange is approximately 1.5 miles east of the Bob Hope Drive interchange. The signalized intersections of Bob Hope Drive with the Interstate 10 eastbound and westbound ramps were evaluated as key intersections 1 and 2.

Bob Hope Drive is classified as a six-lane divided Urban Arterial Highway in the County of Riverside General Plan and a six- lane divided Major Arterial in the Rancho Mirage General Plan. Bob Hope Drive is a designated truck route and scenic corridor. This roadway was recently improved in conjunction with the interchange improvements at Interstate 10. Where Bob Hope Drive abuts the project site, it currently provides three northbound through lanes and two southbound through lanes and has a posted speed limit of 55 mph. The posted speed limit is 50 mph south of Dinah Shore Drive.

The Bob Hope Drive overpass at Interstate 10 provides three northbound and three southbound through lanes. At t he ramp
terminals, the roadbed provides dual left-turn lanes and two through lanes in one direction with three through lanes in the opposite direction. Bob Hope Drive is a six-lane divided arterial south of Interstate 10. The roadbed flares at Ramon Road to provide an exclusive southbound right-turn lane, dual southbound left-turn lanes and three through lanes.

Ramon Road is a four-lane divided arterial immediately east of Bob Hope Drive. West of Bob Hope Drive, Ramon Road is a five-lane divided arterial for approximately 950 feet, with two westbound and three eastbound through lanes. West of the five-lane section, Ramon Road provides three through lanes in each direction with a raised center median divider. Ramon Road is classified as a Major Arterial in the Rancho Mirage General Plan with a 120-foot right-of-way. The posted speed limit on Ramon Road within the City of Rancho Mirage is 55 miles per hour.

Dinah Shore Drive is a four-lane divided Minor Arterial with an existing 110-foot right-of-way. It has a 16-foot wide raised landscape median and provides two travel lanes in each direction. The posted speed limit on Dinah Shore Drive is 45 MPH, west of Da Vall Drive, and 50 MPH between Da Vall Drive and Monterey Avenue. Dinah Shore Drive is fully improved adjacent to the Mission Hills Golf Resort and provides a 17-foot wide landscaped parkway with a meandering 12-foot multi- use trail.

Los Alamos Road is currently a two-lane undivided roadway between Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive. It is fully improved on the west side. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. A meandering 12-foot wide multi-use trail exists on the west side of Los Alamos Road, which accommodates golf carts, pedestrians, and cyclists. Both the City and County circulation plans classify Los Alamos Road as a future four-lane divided roadway. However, the right-of-way required by the City classification would be 110 feet, whereas the County would require a 118-foot right-of-way.

Da Vall Drive, north of Ramon Road, is a four-lane undivided roadway that narrows to a two-lane undivided roadway before terminating south of the Union Pacific Railroad and Interstate 10. Da Vall Drive may ultimately provide access for site traffic to a future interchange at Interstate 10. The posted speed limit on Da Vall Drive is 45 miles per hour. Da Vall Drive is s hown with a four-lane divided cross-section in the Circulation Elements of both of the adjacent cities of Rancho Mirage and Cathedral City. Da Vall Drive, south of Dinah Shore Drive, is improved as a four-lane divided roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour. North of Dinah Shore Drive, the right-of-way and improvements along Da Vall Drive are inconsistent. Where the land along the west side of Da Vall Drive is undeveloped and within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, the ultimate right-of-way has not been dedicated and General Plan roadway improvements have not been made. The east side of Da Vall Drive was fully improved in conjunction with the development of the adjacent Mission Hills 12-1982
3-7
community. The west side of the roadway is fully improved for approximately one-quarter mile south of Ramon Road, adjacent to the Desert Shadows RV Resort and Forest Lawn Memorial Park and Mortuary. However, for approximately 3,500 feet south of Sunshine Way, Da Vall Drive is currently a two-lane undivided roadway except where the pavement width flares to 38 feet to accommodate a southbound left-turn bay for access to the Mission Hills community. The west side of Da Vall is fully improved for 130 feet immediately north of Dinah Shore Drive.

Rattler Road was recently constructed between 30th Avenue and Ramon Road to provide access to the Rancho Mirage High School. The posted speed limit on Rattler Road is 40 mph unless children are present, when it is 25 mph. Rattler Road is a two-lane divided roadway adjacent to the school, and a two-lane undivided roadway north of the school. Rattler Road is flared north of Ramon Road to provide three southbound lanes and two northbound lanes.

Gerald Ford Drive is a four-lane divided Minor Arterial with a 110-foot right-of-way. Within the study area the posted speed limit is 50 MPH. No trucks are allowed to use Gerald Ford Drive.

Existing Traffic Volumes
Seasonal fluctuations in traffic demand reflect trip purposes and the activity in the area served by the roadways. The Coachella Valley is relatively isolated from neighboring urbanized regions and is home to hundreds of resort facilities and retirement communities. In the Coachella Valley, a large tourist and retired population, supported by large service sector employment, generates travel patterns that are, in many ways, atypical of Southern California.

Approximately 3.5 million people visit the Coachella Valley each year. The tourist season extends from October to May, with the increase in the tourist population beginning to peak in January and decreasing substantially after April. Traffic volumes throughout the Coachella Valley are subject to significant seasonal fluctuations, as the population swells in the winter and spring with tourists and “snow birds,” then decreases as they leave to avoid the hot summer months.

Caltrans Traffic Count Data
The most recent Caltrans daily traffic count data for Interstate 10 reflects peak month volumes in the year 2012. 1 Caltrans data indicates that the annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume on I-10 is 91,000 vehicles per day (between Bob Hope Drive and Date Palm Drive) and 93,000 vehicles per day (between Bob Hope Drive and Monterey Avenue). East of Monterey Avenue the AADT is 94,000 vehicles per day.

During the peak month, the average daily traffic (ADT) volume on Interstate 10 is 9.9 percent higher than the AADT between Bob Hope Drive and Date Palm Drive. The volume during the peak month is 9.7 percent higher than the AADT on Interstate 10 between Bob Hope Drive and Monterey Avenue. East of the Monterey Avenue interchange, the ADT on Interstate 10 during the peak month is 11.8 percent higher than the AADT.

The peak hour traffic volume on Interstate 10 of 8,100 vehicles per hour is 8.9 percent of the AADT between Bob Hope Drive and Date Palm Drive. The peak hour volume of 8,300 vehicles per hour on I-10, east of the Bob Hope Drive interchange, also represents 8.9 percent of the AADT. East of the Monterey Avenue interchange, the peak hour volume is 8,500 vehicles per hour (9 percent of the AADT).

Approximately 14,590 vehicles per day (VPD) are currently using I-10 for travel to and from the west and 17,610 VPD are currently using I-10 for travel to and from the east via the new I-10 interchange at Bob Hope Drive and the eastbound I-10 on-ramp from Ramon Road. This indicates that origins and destinations located along I-10 west of the study area account for approximately 45 percent of the 32,200 vehicles per day entering and exiting I-10 in the vicinity of the project site.

Origins and destinations along I-10 located east of the study area account for 55 percent of the trips accessing I-10 at Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road.

Approximately 80 percent of the traffic destined to the east on Interstate 10 from the study area uses the on-ramp on Ramon Road, rather than the on-ramp at the Bob Hope Drive interchange to enter the freeway. The eastbound I-10 on-ramp on Ramon Road improves traffic operations at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road by allowing a combined total of more than one thousand vehicles during the morning and evening peak commuter travel hours to pass through the intersection in the eastbound through lanes and the dedicated northbound right-turn lane, resulting in less delay than using the Bob Hope eastbound I-10 on-ramp.

1 State of California Department of Transportation. 2012 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highway System ; Sacramento, California. 12-1983
3-8
Interstate 10 serves a substantial volume of heavy trucks transporting freight. The heavy vehicles using Interstate 10 currently comprise approximately 23.6 percent of the daily traffic volume, east of Indian Canyon Drive.2 The Riverside County Department of Public Health specifies a truck mix of 8 percent for Major Highways and Arterial Highways for modeling noise impacts. An 8 percent truck mix was assumed for the peak hour operational analysis of intersections in the study area with every development scenario except those in the horizon year 2035, for which a 5 percent truck mix was assumed.

New Traffic Count Data
Manual intersection turning movement counts were made by Counts Unlimited, Inc. at seventeen existing key intersections to document the existing travel patterns within the study area. The intersection counts were collected continuously for two hours in the morning (from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and for two hours in the evening (from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) on Wednesday, November 6, 2013. This data was needed to evaluate the existing traffic operations during the peak travel hours on the adjacent streets. The intersection count data, prior to being increased to reflect peak season conditions, is provided in Appendix 1.

While the traffic counts were being made at the key intersections, 24-hour directional traffic counts were collected at five locations including: Bob Hope Drive (north and south of Ramon Road); Ramon Road (west of Bob Hope Drive and west of the I-10 eastbound on-ramp); and Dinah Shore Drive (west of Bob Hope Drive). The 24-hour machine traffic count locations and data are provided in Appendix 1. The 24-hour traffic counts were used to identify the relationship between the daily two-way traffic volumes on area roadways and the peak hour traffic volumes on those roadways. The 24-hour traffic count data was also used to identify an appropriate seasonal adjustment factor for use in expanding the peak hour count data to reflect peak season conditions in the study area.

Relationship Between Daily and Peak Hour Volumes
The highest hourly two-way volumes at the five 24-hour count locations that occurred between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM (6,227 vehicles per hour) and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM (7,100 vehicles per hour) were added together and then divided by the sum of the 24-hour volumes (89,596 vehicles per day) to identify the percentage of the daily volume than was present during the morning and evening peak hours on the streets in the study area. The morning and evening peak hour traffic volume on all of the roadway segments, combined, represented approximately 15 percent of the daily volume on the roadways. This relationship was used to estimate the peak season daily traffic volumes within the study area for each roadway segment adjacent to the key intersections from the peak hour traffic volumes, after they were expanded to reflect peak season conditions.

Peak Season Traffic Expansion Factor
Since traffic volumes in the study area peak in the winter, traffic count data collected in November must be increased to reflect peak season conditions in the winter months. The twenty-four hour weekday traffic count data collected on November 6, 2013 was compared to peak season traffic count data for the same roadways published by CVAG in the 2013 Traffic Census Report to identify an appropriate seasonal adjustment factor for use in expanding the new traffic count data collected at the key intersections to reflect peak season traffic volumes within the study area. A five percent seasonal expansion factor was identified and applied to the peak hour traffic count data to reflect the existing turning movement volumes at the key intersections during the peak season.

Peak season traffic count data available from the City of Rancho Mirage are shown in Table 3-1. A comparison of the count data collected in March of 2013 to the new 24-hour traffic counts collected in November 2013 validated the five percent seasonal expansion factor. Available 24-hour traffic count data collected for roadways within the northern portion of the study area during September of 2012 were also provided in Table 3-1. These traffic counts from September 2012 occurred shortly after the Bob Hope Drive I-10 interchange was completed, when the dynamic redistribution of traffic associated with the opening of the new interchange may or may not have completely stabilized .

2 State of California Department of Transportation. 2012 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System . 12-1984
3-9
Table 3-1
Recent Weekday Traffic Counts
Roadway Segment Traffic Counta Direction/24-Hour Direction/24-Hour Weekday b Date One-Way Volume One-Way Volume Two-Way Volume

DA VALL DRIVE
- North of Ramon Road 03/19/13 NB 4,563 SB 4,092 8,655
- South of Ramon Road 03/19/13 NB 4,477 SB 6,294 10,771 - North of Dinah Shore Drive 03/19/13 NB 4,494 SB 4,515 9,009 - North of Gerald Ford Drive 03/19/13 NB 5,082 SB 5,626 10,708

BOB HOPE DRIVE
- South of Varner Road 09/05/12 NB 6,066 SB 5,736 11,802 - North of Ramon Road 11/06/13 NB 5,506 SB 11,529 17,035 - North of Ramon Road 09/05/12 NB 4,129 SB 9,265 13,394 - South of Ramon Road 11/07/13 NB 9,342 SB 8,901 18,243 - South of Ramon Road 03/11/13 NB 9,210 SB 9,744 18,954 - South of Ramon Road 09/15/12 NB 7,405 SB 7,206 14,611 - North of Dinah Shore Drive Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [17,559] - North of Gerald Ford Drive 03/11/13 NB 9,960 SB 9,963 19,923 - North of Frank Sinatra 03/12/13 NB 9752 SB 8960 18,712

RIO DEL SOL ROAD
- North of Varner Road 09/05/12 NB 2,752 SB 2,736 5,488

MONTEREY AVENUE
- North of Dinah Shore Drive Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [44,125] - South of Dinah Shore Drive Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [31,702]

DINAH SHORE DRIVE
- West of Da Vall Drive 03/19/13 EB 9,372 WB 9,568 18,940 - West of Bob Hope Drive 11/06/13 EB 8,418 WB 9,063 17,481 - West of Bob Hope Drive 03/11/13 EB 7,931 WB 8,484 16,415 - West of Monterey Avenue 03/05/13 EB 13,577 WB 11,050 24,627 - East of Monterey Avenue Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [9,575]

GERALD FORD DRIVE
- West of Bob Hope Drive 03/11/13 EB 7,497 WB 6,799 14,296 - East of Bob Hope Drive 03/11/13 EB 5,969 WB 6,501 12,470

RAMON ROAD
- West of Da Vall Drive Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [22,682] - East of Da Vall Drive 03/19/13 EB 12,038 WB 12,217 24,255 - West of Bob Hope Drive 11/06/13 EB 11,278 WB 9,279 20,557 - West of Bob Hope Drive Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [23,736] - West of Bob Hope Drive 09/05/12 EB 8,719 WB 8,976 17,695 - East of Bob Hope Drive 11/06/13 EB 11,134 WB 5,146 16,280 - East of Bob Hope Drive Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [26,402] - East of Bob Hope Drive 09/05/12 EB 9,149 WB 4,440 13,589 - West of Varner Road Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [11,693] - West of Varner Road 09/05/12 EB 3,993 WB 5,665 9,658
- East of Varner Road 09/05/12 EB 4,742 WB 5,764 10,506

VARNER ROAD
- West of Bob Hope Drive 09/05/12 NB 2,223 SB 1,930 4,153 - East of Bob Hope Drive 09/05/12 NB 5,628 SB 6,163 11,791 a. Traffic count data shown for September, 2012 and November, 2013 was collected by Counts Unlimited, Inc. and was not expanded to reflect peak season conditions. The 24-hour directional traffic count data shown for March, 2013 was collected by Newport Traffic Studies and reflects peak season conditions. This data was available on the City of Rancho Mirage website. NB=Northbound. SB=Southbound. EB=Eastbound. WB= Westbound. b. The winter 2013 24-hour two-way traffic count data shown in brackets was taken from the CVAG 2013 Traffic Census Report. 12-1985
3-10
Peak Season Traffic Volumes
Figure 3-3 shows the current peak season daily traffic volumes on the roadway links adjacent to the key intersections.

These daily traffic volumes were determined from the peak hour traffic counts made at the key intersections, after they were expanded to reflect peak season conditions. Figure 3-4 shows the current peak season turning movement volumes during the morning and evening peak hours at the key intersections. These volumes represent the new tuning movement counts, expanded by five percent.

Peak Hour Factor
Traffic flow rates can vary substantially over the course of an hour, particularly in the vicinity of schools, where the traffic volumes within the fifteen minutes immediately before and after the school day may exceed the capacity of a roadway even though the hourly volumes would be less than the capacity. For this reason, HCM analyses typically evaluate the peak fifteen -minute traffic flow rate during the peak hour.

Using the peak 15-minute flow rate produces a more conservative analysis that accommodates nearly all of the variations in flow that occur during the peak hour. Since the inputs to the HCM procedures are typically expressed in terms of hourly traffic volumes, a peak hour factor (PHF) is used to increase the traffic volume during the peak hour to reflect the peak 15- minute flow rate. The peak hour factor is the ratio of the total hourly volume to four times the peak 15-minute volume within that hour. Values for PHFs are determined from the peak hour traffic counts made at each key intersection based on the traffic volumes during each 15-minute interval.

A very low PHF (0.25) indicates that all peak hour vehicles arrive in the peak fifteen minutes. A PHF of 1.0 indicates that vehicles are evenly distributed over the peak hour. Site-specific morning and evening PHFs were determined from the observed 15-minute counts at each key intersection during the peak hours. These PHFs are provided in the intersection count data in Appendix 1 and documented for each operational analysis of the key intersections in Section 5. The 2008 Riverside County Transportation Department Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide recommends that that actual peak hour factors be determined from traffic counts at the intersections being evaluated and utilized in the existing and near-term operational analyses and PHF of 1.0 be applied to buildout traffic conditions. The future horizon year 2035 conditions with and without site traffic were evaluated using a PHF of 1.0.

Existing Pedestrian Volumes Crossing Ramon Road at Rattler Road The intersection of Rattler Road and Ramon Road is signalized and provides a crosswalk on the west leg of Ramon Road for students walking to and from the Rancho Mirage High School. Based on the November 6, 2013 traffic count data, the morning peak hour occurs at this intersection between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM. During that hour, a total of 598 vehicles were counted on Rattler Road, north of Ramon Road (263 northbound and 335 southbound). The afternoon peak hour occurred at this intersection between 2:45 PM and 3:45 PM. During that hour a total of 475 vehicles were counted on Rattler Road, north of Ramon Road (225 northbound and 250 southbound).

Pedestrian counts were made at this intersection from 7:00 AM through 9:00 AM and from 2:00 PM through 4:00 PM on November 6, 2013. Crosswalks at this intersection for students of the Rancho Mirage High School are located on the west leg of Ramon Road and on Rattler Road. The pedestrian counts for the crosswalk on Ramon Road included: three pedestrians crossing between 7:15 and 7:30 AM, nine pedestrians crossing between 8:00 and 8:15 AM, and one pedestrian crossing between 8:45 AM and 9:00 AM. No pedestrians were observed between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM crossing Rattler Road at this intersection. The afternoon count for the Rattler Road crosswalk included one pedestrian crossing between 3:00 PM and 3:15 PM and another crossing between 3:15 PM and 3:30 PM. Sixteen pedestrians crossed Ramon Road at the crosswalk during the afternoon count period. All sixteen crossings occurred between 3:00 PM and 3:15 PM.

Truck Access and Goods Movement
Throughout California, approximately 76 percent of all inbound and outbound freight is shipped by truck. The agricultural and industrial sectors of Riverside County’s economy generate a significant amount of truck traffic and depend upon the safe and efficient movement of goods. The primary means of transporting goods and consumer products in Riverside County is large trucks. Truck volumes in the region are projected to increase by forty percent between the year 2003 and the year 2020. Goods movement in the study area is expected to grow rapidly in response to the projected growth in population as well as international trade. Caltrans data for the year 2012 indicates that trucks currently represent 23.6 percent of the traffic volume on Interstate 10 within the study area. 12-1986
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Figure 3-3
Existing Weekday Traffic Volumes
(Year 2013 Peak Season)
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Legend
2-Way Daily Volume in Thousands15.7

20.3 23.8 24.0 24.7

22.4 18.0

18.1 18.7 18.6

12.5 6.0

8.6 18.8

2.1 2.1

7.6 17.2 11.2 Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.

Da Vall Dr. Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
Project
Site
Casino
WestinResort VillasWestin
Mission Hills
Via
Bella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol

8.0 18.8 19.2

46.3 31.6

16.5 16.8 14.9

17.9 19.1

20.3 20.1

11.8 11.6

10.4 2.7

1.8 2.0
100.0
102.0

18.4 19.1

0.81.6 1.3

26.6 10.9
12-1987
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Mission HillsCountry Club
Casino
The Westin
Resort & Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
Mission HillsCountry Club
North
Legend
Morning/Evening Peak
Hour Turning Volume
5/8
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 Westin Resort & Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
Figure 3-4
Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(Peak Season Weekday)
450/374
66/104
271/419
511/515
487/873
36/30
U-Turns 2/16
593/705
28/15
7/43
22/56
72/27
12/11
11/12
15/16
59/47
11/24
15/27
7/35
72/111
930/469
6/34
309/936
29/109
414/697
64/47
59/48
314/193
232/113
105/79
522/596
172/139
63/43
146/305
107/180
13/53
481/879
40/24
64/25
48/33
566/656
527/887
16/36
0/0
603/760
7/4
18/27
3/8
51/180
385/606
100/110
103/91
785/384
47/66
65/71
399/552
143/123
61/182
200/635
105/223
495/897
57/27
U-Turns 0/4
519/800
20/11
32/46
7/1
259/466
152/335
38/35
369/260
1299/773
446/516
297/716
232/284
132/371
17/24
434/1116
118/387
51/56
391/402
171/88
63/58
757/491
83/77
113/163
393/459
133/97
24/80
245/712
62/153
189/140
9/4
471/476
224/298
156/250
360/263
105/373
12/20
337/315
102/58
34/62
679/348
386/422
75/93
670/697
205/169
77/194
149/470
82/247
91/138
612/679
255/124
6/5
499/246
25/45
206/500
96/230
490/716
167/99
218/106
281/118
47/23
24/37
608/675
132/75
88/70
116/269
76/147
113/98
632/866
142/101
210/162
163/139
756/822
783/998
66/28
889/846
30/12
55/36
11/36
1314151617
7 123456
89101112
12-1988
3-11

3.5 Relevant Circulation Plans
The site has frontage on four existing Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan roadways: Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, and Los Alamos Road. No other Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan roadways are located within or adjacent to the project site.

Riverside County General Plan
The Circulation Element of the County of Riverside General Plan identifies the need to shape future growth patterns by moving away from random growth toward concentrated growth and increased job creation. This will require a regional and local linkage system between communities to encourage increased ridership of public transit systems and the increased use of alternative modes of transportation including bicycles and walking.

Riverside County collaborates with cities to implement and integrate right-of-way requirements and improvement standards for General Plan roadways that cross jurisdictional boundaries. For development within the Sphere of Influence of an incorporated jurisdiction, city standards should generally apply where annexation to the City will logically occur in the short to intermediate range future. Where roadways designed to differing city and County standards meet, the transitional areas should be designed on an individual basis to facilitate satisfactory operational and safety performance.

The Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan (Revised October 7, 2003) classifies the roadways in the study area as Urban Arterial, Arterial Highway, Major Highway, Secondary Highway or Collector Street, as shown in Figure 3-5. Figure 3-6 illustrates the typical Riverside County street cross-sections by roadway classification. Table 3-2 summarizes the Riverside County intersection spacing standards by roadway classification.

Table 3-2
Riverside County Access Standards by Corridor Classificationa Street Classification Minimum Right-of-Way Number of Lanes Intersection Spacing Width Requiredb Requiredc Standards

Urban Arterial 152 Feet 6 or 8 Lanes 1/4 Mile Intersection Spacing

Arterial Highway 128 Feet 4 or 6 Lanes 1/4 Mile Intersection Spacing Minimal Driveway Access

Major Highway 118 Feet 4 Lanes 660-Foot Intervals

Secondary Highway 100 Feet 4 Lanes 330-Foot Intervals

Collector Street 74 Feet 2 Lanes Parcel Access Discouraged d a. Source: “County of Riverside General Plan”; Table C-1. b. Additional right-of-way may be required at intersections. c. Arterial highways and urban arterial highways typically have raised medians that allow dual left-turn bays and exclusive right-turn lanes at intersections with secondary or higher classification highways. Major highways typically have painted medians that allow dual left-turn bays and exclusive right-turn lanes at intersections with secondary or higher classification highways. Although no median or turn lanes are typically required on secondary highways, a single left-turn bay and exclusive right-turn lane can be accommodated at intersections with secondary or higher classification highways. d. Parcel access may be permitted only if no local streets are present.

Urban arterials typically provide six or eight through lanes. They may provide dual left-turn lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane at intersections with secondary and higher classification roadways. A roadway with an Urban Arterial classification typically requires a 152-foot right-of-way. Riverside County has designated four Urban Arterials within the study area. They include: (1) Bob Hope Drive, between Varner Road and Dinah Shore Drive, (2) Ramon Road, west of Interstate 10 to Da Vall Drive, (3)Dinah Shore Drive, between Los Alamos Road and Monterey Avenue, and (4) Monterey Avenue, between Varner Road and Gerald Ford Drive.
12-1989
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Legend
Urban Arterial Highway (152’ ROW/6-D)
Arterial Highway (128’ ROW/4-D)
Major Highway (118’ ROW/4-D)
Secondary HIghway (100’ ROW/4-U)
Figure 3-5
Riverside County Circulation Plan
Source: County of Riverside General Plan (Revised March 2001) Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.

Da Vall Dr. Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
Project
Site
Casino
WestinResort VillasWestin
Mission Hills
Via
Bella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
12-1990
Endo Engineering
Figure 3-6
Riverside County Typical Street Sections
Source: Riverside County General Plan; December 2008.

Median
Parkway
Strip
Traveled Way
Right-of-Way
Property
Line
Property
Line
Traveled Way
Parkway
Strip
Centerline
Roadbed
Corridor Classification Median Roadbed R/W
Expressway 14’ 60’ 8 25’ 134’ 184’
Urban Arterial Highway 14’ 48’ 6-8 21’ 110’ 152’
Arterial Highway 18’ 34’ 4-6 21’ 86’ 128’
Major Highway 12’ 32’ 4 21’ 76’ 118’
Mountain Arterial NA 32’ 2-4 23’ 64’ 110’
Secondary Highway NA 32’ 4 18’ 64’ 100’
Industrial Collector 12’ 22’ 2 11’ 56’ 78’
Collector NA 20’ 2 17’ 40’ 74’
Traveled Travel Parkway
Way Lanes Strip
Notes: Improvements may be reconfigured to accommodate exclusive transit lanes or alternative lane requirements. Additional right-of-way may be required at intersections.

Expressways, urban arterials and arterials have raised medians. Majors and industrial collectors have painted medians. 12-1991
3-12
Arterial Highways typically provide four or six through lanes and have a raised median. They may provide dual left-turn lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane at intersections with secondary and higher classification roadways. Arterial Highways typically require a 128-foot right-of-way. Six roadways in the study area are designated Arterial Highway in the Riverside County Circulation Element. They include: (1) Varner Road, northwest of Ramon Road, (2) Ramon Road, east of Varner Road, (3) Dinah Shore Drive, between Plumley Road and Los Alamos Road, (4) Gerald Ford Drive, (5) Bob Hope Drive, south of Dinah Shore Drive, and (6) Monterey Avenue, south of Gerald Ford Drive.

Major Highways require a 118-foot right-of-way and provide four through lanes with a painted median. They may provide dual left-turn lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane at intersections with secondary and higher classification roadways.

Riverside County has designated three Major Highways in the study area including: (1) Da Vall Drive, south of Interstate 10, (2) Los Alamos Road, between Ramon Road and Gerald Ford Drive, and (3)Monterey Avenue, between Ramon Road and Varner Road.

Secondary Highways require a 100-foot right-of-way and provide four through lanes with no median. Two of the roadways within the study area are classified as Secondary Highways by the County of Riverside. They include: Rio Del Sol Road, north of Varner Road, and Varner Road, southeast of Ramon Road.

Riverside County has classified Rio del Sol Road, north of Vista Chino, as a Collector Street. Collector Streets provide one travel lane in each direction within a 40-foot roadbed and require a 74-foot right-of-way. Collector Streets generally are not required to provide exclusive turn lanes at intersections.

Designated Truck Routes
Interstate 10 is a primary corridor for the movement of goods within and through the Coachella Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. I-10 and Highway 111 are part of the state highway truck route system. Both of these facilities are in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Network, which allows larger trucks with no maximum overall length.

Designated Scenic Corridors
Many corridors in the Coachella Valley traverse scenic resources and encourage the growth of tourism. To enhance the aesthetic experiences of residents and visitors as well as protect and maintain the unique visual features along highways located within these corridors, various scenic roadways have been officially recognized and designated. The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan ( October 2003) identifies Bob Hope Drive, between Interstate 10 and Gerald Ford Drive, as a County Eligible Scenic Highway. Policies therein seek to protect and maintain resources in corridors along scenic highways by imposing conditions on developments within scenic highway corridors requiring the dedication of scenic easements consistent with the Scenic Highways Plan when necessary to preserve unique or special visual features. The Riverside County General Plan also requires trail alignments that either provide access to or link scenic corridors, schools, parks, and other natural areas.

Interstate 10 is an Eligible County Scenic Highway between State Route 62 (west of the study area) and the Colorado River.

To preserve the visual resources of the I-10 scenic corridor, the State Scenic Highways Land Use Standards should be applied to all projects within the I-10 scenic highway corridor. These standards include a 50-foot setback from the edge of the right-of-way for all new development where feasible. Interstate 10 is an important visual corridor that should receive special landscape treatments because so many motorists and tourists form their image of the adjacent cities from their travels along I-10. Two types of high-speed corridor treatments are possible along this route: (1) buffered edges to screen unsightly views from the freeway, and (2) landscaped edges designed to promote select views into the adjacent cities.

City of Rancho Mirage General Plan
The project site is located within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Mirage. The City of Rancho Mirage has adopted LOS D as the maximum acceptable service level for peak operating periods in the Circulation Element of the City of Rancho Mirage 2005 General Plan. Figure 3-7 shows the roadway classifications in the Circulation Plan and Figure 3-8 shows the typical street sections associated with each roadway classification in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan.

Bob Hope Drive is classified as a Major Arterial (six-lane divided) in the City of Rancho Mirage 2005 General Plan to accommodate future traffic projections and be consistent with the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) network designations. Bob Hope Drive was extended north of Ramon Road to Varner Road in conjunction with the recent construction of a new spread diamond Interstate 10 interchange. This new interchange replaced three of the four ramps 12-1992
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Legend
Major Arterial (120’ ROW/6-D)
Minor Arterial (110’ ROW/4-D)
Major Collector (100’ ROW/4-D)
Critical Intersection
Figure 3-7
City of Rancho Mirage Circulation Plan
Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan (Revised November 2005) Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.

Da Vall Dr. Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
Project
Site
Casino
WestinResort VillasWestin
Mission Hills
Via
Bella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
Conceptual
Alignment
12-1993
Endo Engineering
Figure 3-8
Rancho Mirage Typical Street Sections
Source: Rancho Mirage General Plan; November 2005.

Median
Parkway
Strip
Traveled Way
Right-of-Way
Property
Line
Property
Line
Traveled Way
Parkway
Strip
Centerline
Roadbed
Corridor Classification Median Roadbed R/W
Primary Arterial 18’ 45’ 6D 13’ 108’ 134’
Major Arterial 16’ 45’ 6D 7’ 106’ 120’
Minor Arterial 16’ 35’ 4D 12’ 86’ 110’
Major Collector 16’ 30’ 4D 12’ 76’ 100’
Minor Collector NA 32’ 4U 12’ 64’ 88’
Local NA 20’ 2U 10’ 40’ 60’
Traveled Travel Parkway
Way Lanes Strip
12-1994
3-13
previously located at the Ramon Road diamond interchange. Only the eastbound I-10 on-ramp from Ramon Road was retained. Five critical intersections are identified along Bob Hope Drive at the intersections of the following roadways: the Westbound I-10 Ramps, the Eastbound I-10 Ramps, Ramon Road, Dinah Shore Drive, and Gerald Ford Drive.

Ramon Road is classified as a 6-lane divided Major Arterial between Da Vall Drive and the I-10 overcrossing. A 120-foot right-of-way is typically required of facilities with a Major Arterial designation. Three critical intersections are identified along Ramon Road at the intersections of Da Vall Drive, Los Alamos Road, and Bob Hope Drive.

Dinah Shore Drive is classified as a 6-lane divided Major Arterial, between Los Alamos Road and Monterey Avenue. A 120- foot right-of-way is typically required of roadways with a Major Arterial designation. Between Plumley Road and Los Alamos Road, Dinah Shore Drive is classified as a 4-lane divided Minor Arterial, which typically requires a 110-foot right-of-way.

Prior to the 2005 update of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan , Dinah Shore Drive, between Los Alamos Road and Bob Hope Drive, was designated and constructed as a 4-lane divided Minor Arterial with a 110-foot right-of-way. Four critical intersections are identified along Dinah Shore Drive at the intersections of Da Vall Drive, Los Alamos Road, Bob Hope Drive, and Monterey Avenue.

Los Alamos Road is classified as a 4-lane divided Minor Arterial, which typically requires a 110-foot right-of-way. Critical intersections are identified on Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road and at Dinah Shore Drive.

Da Vall Drive, south of Interstate 10, is designated as a 4-lane divided Minor Arterial, which typically requires a 110-foot right-of-way. Critical intersections along Da Vall Drive are designated within the study area at Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive.

Monterey Avenue is a six-lane divided roadway, north of Dinah Shore Drive, that provides north-south access between Interstate 10 and Highway 111. It is designated as a 6-lane divided Major Arterial within the study area in the Rancho Mirage General Plan .

Rattler Road is designated as a four-lane divided Major Collector between Ramon Road and 30th Street. Major Collectors typically require a 100-foot right-of-way.

North of Ramon Road, a future four-lane divided Minor Arterial is shown in the Circulation Element extending across Section 13 to the Union Pacific Railroad corridor where it turns northwest and continues to Da Vall Drive. This future Minor Arterial is s
hown intersecting Ramon Road opposite Street “C”, the future full-turn Section 24 access connection proposed between Planning Areas 1 and 2 (Intersection 18 in Figure 2-3).

A Future Minor Arterial with a four-lane divided cross-section is shown in the Circulation Element extending east of Bob Hope Drive across the Section 19 Specific Plan area to Key Largo Avenue. This Minor Arterial intersects Bob Hope Drive north of the point where the alignment of Bob Hope Drive turns west of the eastern boundary of Section 24. This location appears to be opposite the Section 24 Specific Plan future full-turn site access proposed on Bob Hope Drive at Street “D” [Intersection 20].

Truck Routes
The City of Rancho Mirage has designated the following truck routes within the study area: Ramon Road (between Da Vall Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor); Dinah Shore Drive (between Plumley Road and Monterey Avenue); Bob Hope Drive (between Varner Road and Gerald Ford Drive); and Monterey Avenue (south of Dinah Shore Drive). In addition, two roadways are time-restricted truck routes where truck travel is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM.

These roadways include: Gerald Ford Drive (between Plumley Road and Bob Hope Drive) and Bob Hope Drive (south of Gerald Ford Drive).

Scenic Routes
The Community Design Element of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan identifies several policies to strengthen the image of Rancho Mirage by beautifying its arterial streets. From design guidance for entry monuments to the identification of specific landscape themes, these policies encourage quality retail development, recommend enhanced intersection treatments, provide visually distinct gateway landscaping along designated entries to the City, and preserve special view corridors. The major focus of these arterial beautification strategies will be along Bob Hope Drive, between Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive.
12-1995
3-14
The Community Design Element of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan identifies special scenic view corridors that must be preserved and enhanced. Along Ramon Road, the viewsheds to both the east and west have been identified for preservation and enhancement. Along Dinah Shore Drive, the viewshed to the west has been identified for preservation and enhancement. Unique views of mountains and other natural open spaces along these corridors would be preserved through compliance with building height restrictions, the use of low-profile median landscaping, and the provision of wide landscaped parkways.

Streetscape Plans for Scenic Roadways
Streetscape improvement plans that reflect the policies and programs identified in the Community Design Element of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan would be required for all major arterials abutting the project site, prior to the initiation of future landscape or roadway improvements. Design plans exist for the City’s Major Arterials at three distinct levels designated: boulevard, gateway, and special arterial streetscape plans. The implementation of these streetscape improvements is both a public and private responsibility.

As the City’s primary entry, Bob Hope Drive would require a formal landscape plan incorporating community-wide design themes. The intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Ramon Road is designated as a “Primary Gateway”. Given this designation, the design of this intersection should incorporate monument signage and include special paving, widened setbacks, and coordinated accent landscaped treatment at all four corners. A “Gateway Landscaping” designation applies to both sides of Bob Hope Drive, between Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive. The gateway landscape plan envisions a formal skyway design with decorative palms interspersed with smaller specimens to create a dynamic entry into the City.

The Community Design Map in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan includes a “Special Arterial Landscaping” designation for both Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive within the city limits. This designation allows more design flexibility in that each roadway would take on a unique landscape theme reflecting the design character of the adjacent uses. Both formal and informal landscape treatments may be featured, depending on the character of the adjacent development. However, a more coordinated landscape treatment of these arterials and the intensification of planting at major intersections to create an “oasis” effect would be required as well as the preservation of view corridors through streetscape improvements and specialized design standards such as widened parkways and enhanced landscaping to reduce visual impacts.

T
wo intersections adjacent to the project site are designated as “Enhanced Intersections” in the Community Design Element of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan: (1) Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road, and (2) Bob Hope Drive at Dinah Shore Drive. Enhanced intersections include coordinated planning for all four corners through widened setbacks, special crosswalk paving, accent lighting, trees, and other landscaping. Program 3C in the Community Design Element includes undergrounding utilities whenever possible and adopting lighting standards that create the minimum visual impact without compromising safety.

Goals, Policies and Programs
The City’s street system shall be designed and constructed to maximize mobility, minimize congestion, and assure that all intersections and street segments shall operate at LOS “D” or better during the peak hours of traffic, as generated by buildout of the Land Use Plan. The number of access points and intersections along arterials shall be limited in order to preserve mid-block and intersection capacities and to maintain public safety. City Program 4.B facilitates the consolidation of access driveways along all arterials in a manner that minimizes conflicting turning movements and maximizes the use of existing and planned signalized intersections. City Policy 9 states that circulation and access for undeveloped parcels shall be coordinated with surrounding properties.

Per City Policy 10, streets within private planned residential areas shall be installed and maintained as private streets, and shall be developed in accordance with development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable standards and guidelines. Emergency police, fire and paramedic vehicle access shall be provided with all new development to the satisfaction of the City. The City shall preserve and protect existing and future school sites, to the greatest extent practical, from excessive noise and traffic conditions and ensure compatible surrounding land uses. 12-1996
3-15
Critical Intersections
At the discretion of the City Engineer, the City of Rancho Mirage shall require improvements at “critical intersections” beyond those necessary to meet the adopted level of service performance standard. The “critical intersections” identified within the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan represent locations where ideal roadway configurations would provide three through lanes, dual left-turn lanes, and a single dedicated right-turn lane on each approach. As a result, these intersections are expected to require additional right-of-way to accommodate full-width roadway improvements. Those “critical intersections ” involving major arterials designated as scenic corridors in the Rancho Mirage General Plan may be required to dedicate right-of-way beyond that associated with the typical cross-section associated with the facility classification and prepare streetscape plans incorporating landscaping consistent with the standards in the Community Design Element of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan .

Congestion Management Program (CMP)
The Congestion Management Program (CMP) is intended to link land use, transportation, and air quality with reasonable growth management methods, strategies and programs that effectively utilize new transportation funds to alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) that prepares the Riverside County Congestion Management Program updates in consultation with local agencies, the County of Riverside, transit agencies and sub-regional agencies like the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG).

The CMA provides a uniform database of traffic impacts for use in countywide transportation computer models. To analyze traffic impacts associated with development proposals or land use plans, the RCTC has recognized use of the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) and other models. The methodology for measuring levels of service (LOS) must be that contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. Traffic standards must be set no lower than LOS E for any segment or intersection on the CMP system unless the current LOS is lower (i.e., LOS F).

The RCTC has designated a system of highways and roadways to include (at a minimum) all State Highway facilities within Riverside County and a system of principal arterials as the Congestion Management System (CMS). All State Highways within Riverside County have been designated as part of the CMP System of Highways and Roadways. The following facilities are designated as part of the Riverside CMP System of Highways and Roadways in the Coachella Valley:
• Interstate 10 (San Bernardino County line to State line); • S
tate Route 111 (Interstate 10 to Imperial County line); • Ramon Road (Interstate 10 to State Route 111); and
• Monterey Avenue (Interstate 10 to State Route 111).

The 2011 level of service screening analysis in the CMP found that Interstate 10 is operating at LOS C with a peak hour traffic volume (in both directions) of 7,521 vehicles per hour at Date Palm Drive and 8,758 vehicles per hour between Ramon Road and Monterey Avenue. Ramon Road, west of Bob Hope Drive, was evaluated and determined to be operating at LOS C with 2,435 vehicles in the peak hour (both directions). Ramon Road, east of Bob Hope Drive, was identified as operating at LOS F with a peak hour two-way volume of 2,781 vehicles per hour. This unacceptable level of service was attributed to the construction activities associated with the Interstate 10 interchange at Bob Hope Drive. 3 Per the adopted Level of Service standard of "E", when a Congestion Management System (CMS) segment falls to LOS F, a deficiency plan must be prepared by the local agency where the deficiency is located, following coordination with other agencies identified as contributors to the deficiency. The deficiency plan must contain mitigation measures (including TDM strategies and transit alternatives) and a schedule for mitigating the deficiency. RCTC will prepare deficiency plans when deficiencies are identified by local jurisdictions on the State Highway System.

When the I-10 interchange construction at Bob Hope Drive was completed and travel patterns returned to normal in 2012, the traffic volume on Ramon Road, east of Bob Hope Drive, decreased by 56 percent to 1,218 vehicles per hour and the peak hour LOS improved to acceptable levels. Consequently, a deficiency plan will not be required for Ramon Road, west of Bob Hope Drive.

3 VRPA Technologies, Inc.. 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program; December 14, 2012. 12-1997
3-16
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has developed a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program that compliments the objectives of the Congestion Management Program (CMP). The member agencies of CVAG collect a uniform development impact fee to help fund construction of the regional system of roads, streets, and highways (excluding state or federal highways) needed to accommodate growth in the region.

The TUMF program is a component of the Measure “A” sales tax approved by Riverside County voters in 1988 and effective through the year 2039. Measure A and the TUMF program help fund the construction of the regional system of roads, streets, and highways to accommodate growth in the region. Transportation-related improvement projects partially funded by the TUMF program include: arterial street construction, street widening, intersection enhancements, and freeway interchange improvements. Regional transportation funds are meant to supplement, not replace local revenues and/or developer contributions required for approved regional road construction projects. CVAG members that participate in the TUMF and the Multiple Species program pay 25 percent of the cost of eligible regional transportation projects while CVAG pays 75 percent.

CVAG follows the protocol outlined in the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program Policy and Procedures Manual (Updated January 27, 2014), which details the process to be followed by Lead Agencies seeking Measure “A” and TUMF revenues for eligible transportation-related improvement projects. The revenues distributed by CVAG include the Measure “A” sales tax, TUMF collected by CVAG member agencies, and state and federal funding. Lead agencies submitting projects for review and funding through the CVAG Regional Arterial Program must document the project limits, the need for the improvement, and the cost of project design and construction (including right-of-way acquisition, preliminary engineering, alignment and traffic studies, administration, and project management). The CVAG Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) is updated periodically for use in estimating improvement costs.

CVAG uses the ranking identified in the latest version of the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) to allocate the available funding to eligible projects within the Coachella Valley that would meet demonstrated transportation needs. The four primary criteria applied to determine funding priorities include: surface road conditions, system continuity considerations, the level of service, and the accident rate. Additional criteria that may increase the priority of an improvement project include: (1) an improvement cost of less than $1 million; (2) an improvement involving a roadway segment crossing the Whitewater River or a major tributary; (3) project readiness (i.e., r ight-of-way available, environmental
document approved, agency funds reserved, plans and specifications complete); and (4) an improvement that represents a backbone level project (i.e., it is integral to the continued and future development of an area). A lower ranked project in the TPPS receiving “outside funds” may be moved up the priority list, provided it would be of sufficient benefit to the region.

Regional Transportation Improvement Plans
SCAG is responsible for preparing the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan to address requirements set forth in SB 375. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a multi-modal long-range planning document prepared by SCAG. It involves coordination with federal, state and other regional, sub-regional, and local agencies in southern California. The RTP is prepared every three years and reflects the current future horizon based on a 20-year projection of future needs. It includes programs and policies for congestion management, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, roadways, freight, and finances. It is used as a long-range plan for federally funded transportation projects.

The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a 7-year program including all regional and local capital improvement projects that maintain or improve the LOS for traffic and transit and conform to transportation-related emission air quality mitigation measures. Currently, regional projects are programmed in the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), while locally funded projects (off the State Highway System) are identified in local agency CIPs. To comply with CMP Statutes, CIP requirements shall be the same as and accomplished through the RCTC TIP development process. Projects in the CIP may be incorporated into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) for the programming of Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) and Urban and Commuter Rail funds.

The 2010 Update CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study 4 includes the Da Vall Drive interchange at I-10 as a buildable project with relatively low priority (ranked 79th). It would require roadway improvements between Vista Chino and Varner Road, including a bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad and a bridge at the Long Canyon Channel, in addition to the interchange improvements. These improvements would exceed $91,000,000 and not be initiated until 1.5 billion dollars

4 KOA Corporation. 2010 Update CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study; November 2010. 12-1998
3-17
in other roadway improvements were completed by CVAG. The widening of Da Vall Drive, north of Ramon Road, to its ultimate cross-section is also a buildable project (designated B-419) in the 2010 TPPS. It is ranked 88th of 247 buildable projects and has a score of 9.3 points. The cost associated with the widening of Da Vall Drive, between Ramon Road and Vista Chino, was estimated to be $24,025,032 in the 2010 TPPS.

Existing TSM Programs
There are no Transportation System Management plans in effect in the study area at present. No transit stations or park- and-ride facilities currently exist in the vicinity.

3.6 Alternative Transportation Modes
Public Transportation
The Sunline Transit Agency provides fixed-schedule bus service (SunBus) between local communities and on-demand transportation (SunDial) for individuals with disabilities. The SunLine Transit Agency provides public transportation for 3.5 million passengers annually. A fleet of low-emission buses operate on seven days per week (excluding Thanksgiving and Christmas) along the fourteen fixed-schedule SunBus transit routes to provide public transportation service to nine cities and five communities within the Coachella Valley.

SunBus Line 32 provides service between the Palm Springs Air Museum (on Gene Autry Trail) and the Palm Desert Civic Center. Popular destinations served by Line 32 include: the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa, the College of the Desert, the Eisenhower Medical Center and the Westfield Palm Desert shopping center. Line 32 is located on Ramon Road, between Date Palm Drive and Monterey Avenue. This portion of SunBus Line 32 is adjacent to the northern site boundary.

Buses on Line 32 operate between 5:02 AM and 10:46 PM on weekdays with 50-minute headways. On Saturdays and Sundays, the buses on Line 32 operate between 6:54 AM and 10:48 PM with one-hour headways.

Transit stops for westbound buses are currently located along the north side of Ramon Road: (1) west of Rattler Road, near Rancho Mirage High School, and (2) approximately 180 feet west of Bob Hope Drive, near the northeast corner of the project site. Transit stops for eastbound buses are also located along the south side of Ramon Road: (1) approximately 880 feet east of Da Vall Drive, at the Braille Institute, and (2) approximately 160 feet east of Bob Hope Drive, at the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa.

Line 32 operates along Monterey Avenue (between Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive), along Dinah Shore Drive (between Monterey Avenue and Bob Hope Drive), and along Bob Hope Drive (south of Dinah Shore Drive). At the i
ntersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive, SunBus Line 32 is located closest to the southeast corner of the project site. Two existing transit stops for Line 32 are located near this intersection. For eastbound buses (i.e., those traveling from Palm Springs to the City of Palm Desert) a transit stop is located on the west side of Bob Hope Drive, approximately 120 feet south of Dinah Shore Drive. For westbound buses (i.e., those destined for the City of Palm Springs from the City of Palm Desert) a transit stop is located on the south side of Dinah Shore Drive, approximately 300 feet east of Bob Hope Drive.

SunLine Transit Agency buses are wheelchair accessible and have bicycle racks that can accommodate either two or three bicycles and are convenient for cyclists to use. Bike racks are proposed by SunLine Transit at select bus stop locations within the City of Rancho Mirage. One of these locations is within the study area, just west of the intersection of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive (at Stop #939). Buses traveling from Palm Springs and Palm Desert on Line 32 would stop near these bicycle racks, which would be located on the far side of the intersection of Shoppers Lane and Dinah Shore Drive. No bicycle commuter showers or clothing lockers are currently located within the City of Rancho Mirage. The City currently has no requirements for bicycle amenities. 5
No transit stations or park-and-ride facilities currently exist in the City of Rancho Mirage. The Section 19 Specific Plan included a potential site adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad corridor for the future development of a multi-modal transit center. The future plans for the Section 13 Specific Plan area also included a possible site for a future multi-modal transit center adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad corridor.

5 Ryan Snyder Associates, LLC and Urban Crossroads. Final CVAG Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update; September, 2010. 12-1999
3-18
The SunLine Transit Agency contracts with a private provider for SunDial, a door-to-door dial-a-ride service. SunDial is a demand response service designed to serve seniors and those with disabilities on an appointment basis between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekends. In addition to SunDial, a subscription- based transit service is available through agencies serving people with disabilities who need regular repetitive trips.

Golf Carts and NEVs
Residents of Rancho Mirage use golf carts for more than transportation on individual golf courses. Golf carts are used for access between residences and the golf courses in adjacent neighborhoods. They are also used for local trips made between residences and commercial and medical facilities, the City Hall, and golf cart paths in adjoining cities. Golf carts are legally restricted to designated pathways and roadways within Rancho Mirage with speed limits that do not exceed 35 mph and can be operated at no more than 20 mph. Figure 3-9 shows the existing and future City of Rancho Mirage golf cart circulation system.

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) defines golf carts as vehicles designed to operate at a maximum speed of 15 mph and states that golf carts can be driven only on roadways with posted speed limits of up to 25 mph except in cases where travel on roadways with higher speed limits is permitted by ordinance or resolution of a local authority. The CVC defines Neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) as vehicles that can reach speeds of 20 to 25 mph within one mile. NEVs may be operated on any roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less and may cross at intersections that have a higher speed limit than 35 mph.

Like bikeways, golf cart paths have three classifications (Class I, Class II, and Class III). Class I paths are completely separated from the roadway used by motor vehicles. Class I facilities are for shared one-way or two-way use by golf carts, bicyclists, and pedestrians and are incorporated in Class I bikeways. Class II golf cart facilities provide a striped lane on a street or highway for one-way golf cart and bicycle travel. Class III facilities are established by placing “Golf Cart Route” signs along roadways with speed limits of 25 mph or less to provide linkages to Class I or C lass II facilities.

Non-Motorized Transportation
Bicycling, walking and equestrian transportation modes represent non-motorized alternatives to the automobile. Bikeways and pathways are used by a wide variety of people including children on their way to and from school, commuters riding to and from work, and people exercising, racing or touring. While recreational riders seek routes leading to parks, through areas of interest, or racing circuits, commuters want the shortest, fastest, and safest route between two points.

Bikeways
Caltrans standards are used to design bikeways by most jurisdictions throughout California. The City of Rancho Mirage adheres to Caltrans bikeway standards. Bike lanes on existing roadways should conform to Caltrans standards or be upgraded to meet Caltrans standards. These standards apply to three different classifications of bicycle facilities: Class I, Class II, and Class III bikeways.

A Class I Bikeway is a bike path that provides for bicycle travel on a right-of-way completely separated from any street or highway. The paths may be located along alignments parallel to streets or unrelated alignments as long as there is no encroachment from motor vehicle or pedestrian traffic except at grade intersections. A Class II Bikeway is a bike lane that provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel within the paved area of a street or highway. These bike lanes are within an exclusive right-of-way designated for use by bicyclists. However, cross traffic is permitted for driveway access. A Class III Bikeway is a bike route in which both bicycle and motor vehicle traffic share the same roadway surface area. The route is marked with signs or stenciled lettering on the pavement identifying the roadway as part of a bikeway system.

Existing Bikeways
Within the City of Rancho Mirage, Class I bikeways are typically a combined meandering sidewalk and bike path within the landscaped parkway along arterial streets. Most of the arterial streets within the City have a roadbed of sufficient width to allow for a four-foot wide Class II bike lane along the curb. The Conservation and Open Space Element states that Class III bike routes are not recommended for Rancho Mirage except: (1) where Class I and II facilities are not feasible and an essential regional bike route connection is desired, or (2) where Class I and Class II facilities are not warranted due to lesser roadway classifications.
12-2000
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Legend
Existing Path
Future Path
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.

Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
Project
Site
Casino
WestinResort VillasWestin
Mission Hills
Via
Bella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
Figure 3-9
City of Rancho Mirage
Bicycle/Golf Cart/Pedestrian Paths
Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan (Revised November 2005) 12-2001
3-19
The combined length of the existing bikeways within the City of Rancho Mirage totals approximately 16.6 miles. The existing bikeways have been funded by the City with General Funds or Development Impact Fees (DIF). The following Class II bikeways exist within the study area.
• A Class II bikeway extends 4.7 miles along the east side of Bob Hope Drive, from Ramon Road south to Sunrise Drive. • A Class II bikeway extends 2.0 miles along Gerald Ford Drive from Los Alamos Road to Monterey Avenue. • A Class II bikeway extends 1.7 miles along Ramon Road from the western city limit to Bob Hope Drive. • A Class II bikeway extends 0.4 miles along Los Alamos Road, south of Gerald Ford Drive to Sunny Lane. • A Class II bikeway is located on the west side of Bob Hope Drive, south of Cherry Hills Drive to Sunrise Drive. • A Class II bikeway is located on Monterey Avenue, between Dinah Shore Drive and Gerald Ford Drive.

The City of Rancho Mirage has bicycle parking at the following locations: the Monterey MarketPlace, the southwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive, the City Hall, The River Shopping Center, the Library, the Eisenhower Medical Center, the Pavilions Shopping Center (southwest corner of the Bob Hope Drive/Gerald Ford Drive intersection), the southwest corner of the Monterey Avenue intersection with Country Club Drive, Whitewater Park.

A sidewalk/golf cart/bicycle path exists on Da Vall Drive, from Dinah Shore Drive north beyond Ramon Road. It terminates south of 30th Avenue. A sidewalk/golf cart/bicycle path also exists on Ramon Road, between Da Vall Drive and Los Alamos Road. A sidewalk/golf cart/bicycle path exists on the south side of Dinah Shore Drive from Plumley Road to Bob Hope Drive.

Future Bikeways
The City of Rancho Mirage has proposed ten bikeway projects for inclusion in the CVAG Non-Motorized Transportation Plan that would supplement the existing bikeways by a total of 11.3 new miles of bikeways. The following bikeway projects are proposed within the study area.
• A Class I bikeway project 0.7 miles in length is proposed along the Union Pacific Railroad corridor from the northern city limit to the eastern city limit. This facility is estimated to cost $700,000. • A future one-mile long Class II bikeway project is proposed along Da Vall Drive, from Ramon Road to Dinah Shore Drive, with an estimated cost of $50,000.
• A future 3.1-mile long Class II bikeway project is proposed along Dinah Shore Drive, from Da Vall Drive to Monterey Avenue, with an estimated cost of $155,000.
• A future 1.5-mile long Class II bikeway project is proposed along Gerald Ford Drive, from Plumley Road to Los Alamos Road, with an estimated cost of $75,000.

A bicycle parking program project is proposed with an estimated cost of $25,000. New bicycle parking will be added by the property owners at the intersection of Dinah Shore Drive and Bob Hope Drive and at the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa (on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road). The Section 24 Specific Plan will be developed on the opposite side of the street from these bicycle parking areas. Bikeways proposed in conjunction with Section 24 Specific Plan (along Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, and Dinah Shore Drive) will make these bicycle parking areas accessible to future residents of Section 24.

The bikeway and trail system identified in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan (October 2003) includes future Class I bike paths at three locations within the study area. These locations include: the north side of Interstate 10, along Ramon Road, and along Bob Hope Drive. A Class I bikeway is a bike path that provides for bicycle travel on a right-of-way completely separated from any street or highway. The paths may be located along alignments parallel to streets or unrelated alignments, as long as there is no encroachment from motor vehicle or pedestrian traffic, except at grade intersections.
12-2002
3-20
Multi-Purpose Trails
The County of Riverside has pedestrian and multi-purpose trails that accommodate hikers and others as an integral part of the circulation system. These trails connect communities and activity centers and also provide recreational and leisure opportunities.

The City of Rancho Mirage encourages pedestrian and non-motorized transportation by making provisions for sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use trails within roadway designs and rights-of-way. Alternative transportation corridors enhance and provide a range of mobility options for residents and visitors. The City encourages developments to consider pedestrian safety and accommodate safe routes which are clearly marked and striped. They should be designed as one-way routes to flow in the same direction as the adjacent automobile traffic. Combination sidewalk/bikeway/golf cart paths require a minimum eight-foot width. Figure 3-9 shows the existing and future pedestrian path circulation system. As shown therein, future sidewalk/bikeway/golf cart paths are planned on the perimeter of the project site (along Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, and Los Alamos Road) in the Rancho Mirage General Plan that would link with the integrated system being developed throughout the study area.

The Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines require that when new pedestrian facilities are planned in the United States, they must be accessible and usable by persons with disabilities (including physical, visual, hearing or cognitive impairments). 6 This includes provisions for curb ramps and sidewalks where appropriate. These guidelines consider pedestrian facilities to include: sidewalks, shared-use paths, shared streets, and off-road paths.

In accommodating pedestrians with disabilities, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic information may be required to aid pedestrian movements at intersections and mid-block crossing locations. Treatments may include accessible pedestrian signals, audible signals, and other wayfinding cues. Ramps rather than stairs, curbs, or raised channelizing islands can enhance the mobility of people with disabilities including pedestrians with visual impairments.

3.7 Mobility for Persons With Special Needs
Older drivers may have age-related diminished capabilities with the potential to impact the safety and efficiency of the street system. To better meet the needs and capabilities of older street users, their special needs should be considered in street design, traffic control, and lighting design. Appropriate enhancements and design measures can improve their performance.

Pedestrians include a person walking, a person in a wheelchair, on skates, or on a skateboard. Long crossing distances and high vehicle speeds generally discourage pedestrians. A mix of land uses and pedestrian-scale lighting provide a sense of comfort. P
edestrian facilities include sidewalks and curb cuts; crosswalks; traffic control features (pedestrian signals); and ramps for older walkers, bicycles, and persons with mobility impairments. They may also include bus stops; passenger loading areas; amenities (benches and shelters); and stairs, escalators or elevators linked to these facilities.

Audible pedestrian signals and tactile ramp and crosswalk materials to aid the visually impaired may be required for persons with disabilities.

Pedestrians tend to walk in a path that has the shortest distance between two points. They resist changes in grade or elevation when crossing roadways and tend to avoid using special underpass or overpass facilities. Pedestrians will typically not walk more than one mile to work or walk more than 0.5 mile to catch a bus. Pedestrian volumes peak at noon, rather than at the morning and evening peak commuter times. Older pedestrians may be affected by limitations in sensory, perceptual, cognitive, or motor skills. In areas where there are many older people, an average walking speed of 2.8 feet per second should be considered for use in design.

6 Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (draft). Washington, DC: U.S. Access Board, 2005. Accessible via www.access-board.gov/prowac/draft.htm. 12-2003
4-1

4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC
A period of 20 years is widely used as a basis for design. Estimating traffic beyond this period is usually not justified because of probable changes in the regional economy, population, and land development along the roadways, which cannot be predicted with any degree of assurance. 1 Although no time frame has been established for development within the Section 24 Specific Plan area after the initial phase, project completion was assumed for the purposes of this analysis to occur in the horizon year 2035, the future year for which travel demand within the study area can be projected by the approved regional traffic model (RIVTAM).

4.1 Analysis Periods and Horizon Years Evaluated
To identify the potentially significant traffic impacts of a project and the corresponding design and mitigation requirements, the trip-generation rates for different days and time periods must be examined to determine when the trip generation associated with the development will peak. The peaking characteristics of the adjacent street system must also be examined to correctly identify and select the appropriate time period for analysis. The time period that should be analyzed is that in which the combination of site traffic and adjacent street traffic is at its maximum.

In most cases, the trip generation rates reflecting the morning and evening peak hours of the adjacent street system are used for the impact evaluation. These rates reflect the highest volume hour between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. and between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. However, some land uses generate trips that peak at different times than the adjacent streets.

Examples include theaters, churches, schools, and industrial uses with shifts that end at 3:00 P.M. Hotels, construction sites, and golf course maintenance facilities often have shifts that end at 3:00 PM.

Several schools are located within the study area including two high schools. School traffic tends to exhibit a relatively sharp peak over the twenty-minute period immediately before classes begin for the day and after the school day ends. The school day begins at 8:00 A.M. on 136 days per year at the Rancho Mirage High School. On 37 Wednesdays per year, collaboration time begins at 7:45 A.M. and Period 1 begins at 9:05 A.M. These start times result in school traffic peaking during the same hours that commuter travel peaks (i.e., between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. on weekdays). The school day ends at 2:55 P.M., before the evening commuter traffic flows on Ramon R oad reach their peak.

Time Period Selected For Analysis
Site traffic volumes vary with the type and intensity of the proposed development. For example, office uses generate relatively little weekend traffic but high entering volumes in the morning and high exiting volumes during the afternoon or evening on weekdays. Residential land uses generate trips with little day-to-day variation but the opposite directional distribution, with high outbound traffic volumes during the morning and high inbound traffic volumes during the evening on weekdays. Traffic peaks occur at large regional shopping centers during the evening on weekdays but during the midday on weekends.

The development proposed would include up to 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3,138,600 feet of non-residential development. The exact scale, size, and composition of the tourist-oriented commercial, local-serving retail, office, entertainment, and hotel uses within the mixed-use non-residential areas of the Section 24 Specific Plan have not been determined but will be developed in a manner designed to promote complementary and synergistic relationships between the various uses . Each of the proposed land use types will generate trips with a unique profile that peak at slightly different times of the day, on different days of the week, and with different percentages of inbound versus outbound trips during the peak hours. Each trip involves a vehicle movement in one direction, either entering or leaving an individual land use, that must be accommodated by the surrounding street system as well as the access intersections and the internal streets.

The number of trips generated by the proposed residential and non-residential uses will vary by season and peak during the winter months, when tourists and visitors are attracted to the area by its mild climate, natural beauty, and numerous recreational opportunities. The tourist season in the Coachella Valley extends from October through May, with the peak occurring in January. The seasonal influx of part-year residents (“snow birds” from Canada and areas within the northern United States with cold climates) that begins in October reverses by April. Both the tourist population and the number of part- year seasonal residents decrease substantially after April.

1 AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets . 1994. pp 61. 12-2004
4-2
When all of the trips generated by the various proposed land uses are combined, the composite trip-making pattern is expected to exhibit characteristics similar to the background traffic in the study area in terms of its seasonal, daily, peak hour, and directional distribution. Therefore, the conditions selected for analysis included the peak morning and evening commuter travel hours on the adjacent streets on typical weekdays during the peak season. Although commercial and residential development will also generate traffic peaks during the midday on weekends, the absence of commuter traffic on the adjacent streets at that time makes it less critical from a traffic impact perspective.

When combined, the traffic generators proposed within the Section 24 Specific Plan area are expected to generate the highest volume of traffic on the roadways abutting the site on weekday mornings (between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M.) and evenings (between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.). Since many retail land uses are not open for business in the morning between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M., the traffic volumes generated by the site on weekdays are expected to be higher during the evening peak hour than the morning peak hour. The residential land uses for senior adults in the initial phase would generate fewer trips during the morning peak hour than conventional single-family detached residential uses for larger families, which generate more trips to school and work on weekday mornings.

Horizon Years and Development Scenarios Evaluated
The initial phase of the proposed project would include the construction of up to 1,200 single-family residential dwelling units within a gated community for active adults aged 55 and above. This phase of the development would occur over a period of six to eight years and be completed in the year 2022. Although a timeframe has not been established for implementation of the development proposed within Planning Areas 1 through 7, buildout of the entire project was assumed to occur by the horizon year 2035. Consequently, the key intersections were evaluated with and without the proposed project at three different points in time. These include: (1) the existing year 2013, (2) the near-term year 2022, when the initial phase is completed, and (3) the long-term horizon year 2035, when the site development is completed.

The peak season during the year 2013 was evaluated as the existing baseline condition, based on new traffic counts made at each of the key intersections on N ovember 6, 2013 that were expanded by five percent to reflect peak season conditions.

The near-term future year 2022 conditions were evaluated to identify potential impacts and mitigation when the initial phase of development is completed. The long-term future horizon year 2035 conditions were evaluated based on future travel demand forecasts produced by the regional transportation model developed for Riverside County in association with SCAG to determine if the future circulation system planned for the study area can accommodate site traffic as well as the cumulative travel demands generated by all future development anticipated by city and county general plans and the SCAG regional growth forecasts.

For each development scenario, peak season morning and evening peak hour conditions were evaluated to establish whether or not mitigation would be required to achieve the applicable intersection performance standards. The development scenarios assessed included the following:
• Existing Conditions;
• Existing Plus Initial Phase Conditions;
• Existing Plus Project Buildout Conditions;
• Future Year 2022 Through Traffic Conditions;
• Future Year 2022 Plus Initial Phase;
• Horizon Year 2035 Through Traffic Conditions; and
• Horizon Year 2035 Plus Project Buildout Conditions.

Existing conditions with and without site traffic volumes generated by the initial phase were evaluated to assess conditions prior to the addition of traffic generated by cumulative developments. The existing+project buildout scenario assumed no traffic growth other than the site traffic volumes. All of the future scenarios evaluated included growth in background traffic projected by RIVTAM. The near-term year 2022 scenarios also included cumulative traffic generated by two projects within the study area.

Future year 2022 (near-term) traffic conditions at the key intersections were evaluated with and without the site traffic associated with the initial phase of the proposed project. The intermediate year 2022 “through” traffic volumes were developed from the existing and horizon year 2035 “through” traffic projections by interpolation, assuming a geometric growth rate. Cumulative traffic generated by two cumulative projects within the study area identified by the City of Rancho Mirage was also added to the near-term through traffic projections. 12-2005
4-3
Future horizon year 2035 traffic conditions were evaluated with and without the site traffic associated with buildout of the proposed project. RIVTAM traffic projections reflecting buildout of the proposed project were needed to determine whether the regional roadway network shown in the Circulation Plan of the Riverside County General Plan and the Rancho Mirage 2005 General Plan would provide acceptable levels of service with project buildout traffic volumes in the horizon year 2035.

4.2 Site Traffic Projections
Riverside County General Plan Trips
The Land Use Element of the Riverside County General Plan designations for the 577 gross acres within the project site are shown in Table 2-1. A total of 240 gross acres within the project site are designated Medium Density Residential (which allows 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre) in the Land Use Element of the Riverside County General Plan. Up to 1,200 single- family detached dwelling units would be allowed by this designation. Based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates for conventional single-family detached housing (Land Use Code 210) these 1,200 dwellings have the potential to generate approximately 10,230 weekday trips.

The Riverside County General Plan also designates 120 acres of the site as Commercial Retail (CR) and 257 gross acres as Commercial Tourist (CT). RIVTAM reduces the gross acreage by 25 percent to estimate the net acreage. With 252.75 net acres and a maximum FAR of 0.35, the maximum gross floor area (GFA) allowed for commercial land uses would be 3,853,427 square feet. RIVTAM uses the project-related population, number of households, and employment (jobs) as factors in estimating the project-related weekday trip generation. Assuming an employment density of 500 square feet per employee, the number of jobs associated with the maximum allowed non-residential development per the Riverside County General Plan designations would be 7,707 jobs.

The maximum proposed non-residential building floor area would be 18.6 percent less than the maximum allowed by the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan . Since the number of trips generated would be a function of the total size of the non- residential building floor space developed, the proposed project would be expected to generate approximately 18.6 percent fewer non-residential weekday trips than the maximum allowed by the Riverside County General Plan. Assuming the weekday trip-generation rate for shopping centers from the regression equation in Trip Generation (ITE, 2008), the commercial uses allowed within the site by the R iverside County General Plan could generate up to 78,330 weekday trips.

The combined residential and commercial trip generation would total 88,560 weekday trips (prior to internal trip capture and pass-by trip reductions).

City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Trips
Assuming the Rancho Mirage General Plan average household size of 2.97 for R-M and 1.95 for R-H, the 2,007 dwelling units permitted by the 414 net acres designated R-M and the 39 acres designated R-H within the project site could add up to 5,603 new residents to the City of Rancho Mirage. Based on the trip-generation rates in ITE Trip Generation , 2007 dwelling units would have the potential to generate approximately 15,680 weekday trips.

The 75 net acres designated C-C would permit up to 1,143,450 square feet of GFA, assuming the maximum FAR of 0.35.

With an employment density of 500 square feet per employee, a total employment of 2,287 would result from the development of the site. Based on the trip-generation rates in ITE Trip Generation , a community commercial shopping center with 1,143.45 TSF would have the potential to generate approximately 33,100 weekday trips.

The weekday trip generation associated with the maximum permitted residential density and the non-residential community commercial portion of the site would be 48,780 weekday trips. This total represents “unadjusted” trips, prior to reductions for internal trip making between the residential and commercial components and without pass-by trip reductions.

Site-Generated Trips With Proposed Project
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation (8th Edition; December 2008) is the principal source of trip-generation rates for site traffic analysis. The procedures and guiding principles outlined in Trip Generation Handbook - An ITE Recommended Practice (March, 2001) were employed to identify appropriate trip-generation rates, based upon the weighted averages and, where appropriate, the regression equations developed by the ITE. 12-2006
4-4
While site-specific conditions like the availability of transit and walk-in traffic can result in different vehicular trip-generation rates, the practice of making adjustments to the rates for small differences in auto occupancy or transit usage is questionable, given the precision of the measurement of the ITE trip-generation rates and their day-to-day variation.

Therefore, no transit usage or auto occupancy adjustments were made to the ITE trip-generation rates.

While this results in a “worst case” analysis, as required by CEQA, it is not meant to imply that alternative modes of transportation would not play an important role in future trip-making within the project site. The 2004 CVAG Origin Destination Survey found that less than one percent of the trips in the region were completed using public transportation but residents in multi-family housing were twice as likely to use public transportation than residents of single-family housing.

Approximately 4 percent of all trips made by the households surveyed were made by walking and one percent were made by bicycle. Residents of non-retired households were four times more likely to walk to their destination than residents of retired households.

Unadjusted Trip Generation
The trip-generation forecast shown in Table 4-1 was developed with the trip-generation rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) from data collected at isolated single-use stand-alone developments in suburban settings with little or no transit service and free parking. The ITE considers shopping centers a single land use, even though they may include banks, restaurants, office buildings, health clubs, movie theaters and other recreational facilities. The trip- generation data gathered at the driveways of shopping centers only includes external trips (i.e., those trips with either an origin or a destination located outside of the shopping center). Since the ITE data for shopping centers does not include any internal trips, the trip-generation forecast for a shopping center should not be “adjusted” (i.e., reduced) to reflect trip interactions between the various uses within the shopping center that do not require travel on external streets.

Table 4-1
Unadjusted Weekday Site Trip-Generation Forecasta
(Section 24 Specific Plan)
Land Use Category Land Use Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Daily Quantityb In Out Total In Out Total 2-Way

INITIAL PHASE
Residential (Adult Single-Family) 1,200 DU 82 152 234 176 113 289 4,480

ALL SUBSEQUENT PHASES
Non-Residential (Retail/Mixed Use Core)c 3,139 TSF 718 459 1,177 3,137 3,266 6,403 63,800 Residential (Multi-Family Attached) 1,206 DU 64 314 378 310 153 463 5,610 SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDOUT 864 925 1,789 3,623 3,532 7,155 73,890 a. Based upon trip-generation data published by the ITE in Trip Generation (8th Edition, December, 2008). The ITE Land Use Codes (LUC) assumed include: LUC 251 for Senior Adult Housing-Detached Residential Dwellings (age 55+); LUC 820 for commercial center uses; and LUC 230 for Multiple- Family Attached Residential uses. ITE trip-generation rates reflect neighborhood commercial centers, community commercial centers, regional and super regional centers with up to 2.3 million square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) in suburban areas within the United States. Some contained non- merchandising facilities such as: office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, health clubs, and recreational facilities (e.g., ice skating rinks or indoor miniature golf courses). A shopping center’s composition is related to its market area in terms of size, location, and types of stores. b. DU=Dwelling Units. TSF=Thousand Square Feet of Building Floor Area. c. The 3,138,600 square feet of non-residential development would include a complementary mix of land uses which could include: retail commercial, entertainment, office, hotel uses within the Planning Areas designated Resort Flex, Mixed Use Core and Retail shown in Figure 2-3.

The morning peak hour trip-generation estimate was based on the rates identified for the highest volume hour between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. The evening peak hour forecast was based upon the rates identified for the highest volume hour between 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. These rates reflect the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic within the study area. 12-2007
4-5
As shown in Table 4-1, the initial phase of development would generate approximately 4,480 weekday trips when completed. Of that total, 234 trips (82 inbound and 152 outbound) are expected to occur during the morning peak hour and 289 trips (176 inbound and 113 outbound) are expected to occur during the evening peak hour. The number of unadjusted trips shown for subsequent phases and project buildout in Table 4-1 must be adjusted (reduced) to reflect trips made on-site, between the residential land uses and the non-residential land uses, that will be “captured” internally and not made on external streets. A reduction in the non-residential trip generation forecast would also be appropriate to account for pass-by trips.

Adjusted Trip Generation
The development of mixed-use projects reduces the trip generation associated with the development below that which is projected directly from the ITE trip-generation rates. When several different land use types are included in a single mixed- use development, the traffic added to the adjacent streets may be less than the sum of the individual trip generation associated with each individual land use code. The reduction is attributable to trips being made by vehicles on internal roadways that remain internal to the proposed development (e.g., between the residential and retail or entertainment uses).

The internal trip interactions that occur without using streets external to the project site are counted twice when the trip generation of the individual uses is summed to establish the “unadjusted” trip generation.

Since the precise mix and size of the various non-residential land uses within the project have not been established, the trip generation was estimated by using the ITE trip-generation rates developed from data collected at more than 300 shopping centers ranging in size from neighborhood and community commercial centers to regional and super regional centers.

These rates reflect data collected at commercial developments that include a range of non-merchandising facilities. The land uses in shopping centers include banks, small offices, restaurants, and retail stores. The shopping center data was deemed appropriate because it inherently eliminates internal trips made between various uses within the non-residential portion of the Specific Plan. However, adjustments to address the internal trip interactions between the non-residential component of the Specific Plan and the residential component are appropriate and can be made even though the shopping center trip-generation rates were used to develop Table 4-1.

The number of internal trips between the residential land uses and the non-residential within t he multi-use site is a function of both the size of the receiving land use (the number of trips attracted to the non-residential development proposed) and the size of the originating land use (the number of trips produced and sent by the proposed residential land uses). The number of internal trips that will be captured within the site will be constrained by the smaller of these two values. An iterative balancing procedure must be utilized to constrain internal trip making estimates to realistic values, based upon the size (scale) and mix (diversity) of the various land uses within the site as well as their proximity, ease of access, and the availability of competing land uses in the surrounding area.

The internal capture rate between the proposed residential and non-residential uses on-site would be limited by the total number of residential trips. Since the residential trips would represent only 13.7 percent of the total site trip generation, a conservative internal capture rate of 15 percent of the residential trips was assumed for this analysis. While the potential exists for the internal capture rate to ultimately be higher than 15 percent, a higher rate could not be justified without more detailed information regarding the size, location, and diversity of the non-residential land uses.

Since the initial phase of development would include only residential development, no internal trip interactions would occur and the trip generation shown in Table 4-1 was assumed for the initial phase of the development. Table 4-2 shows the adjusted trip-generation forecast associated with buildout of the proposed project. The procedure used to remove the internal trips between the residential and non-residential components of the development (trips that that were counted twice in Table 4-1) is summarized in Table 4-2.

The proposed project would generate a combined total of 71,260 adjusted weekday trips (including pass-by trips on abutting roadways). Approximately 2,630 weekday trips are expected to occur between the various land uses proposed within the site using internal pathways. Approximately 68,630 weekday trips are expected to be external trips (i.e., trips with either an origin or a destination that is located off-site) that require travel on roadways that may abut the site but are not located entirely within the proposed development. During the morning peak hour on weekdays, the proposed project would generate a total of 1,677 adjusted trip-ends of which 1,565 w ould be external trips and 112 would be internal trips. The external trips would include 751 inbound and 812 outbound trips. During the evening peak hour, a total of 6,957 adjusted trip-ends would be generated. Approximately 6,759 would be external trips and the remaining 198 would be internal trips.

The external trips would include 3,524 inbound and 3,433 outbound trips. 12-2008
4-6
Table 4-2
Adjusted Weekday Site Trip-Generation Forecast
(Section 24 Specific Plan)
Internal Trip Interactions Unadjusted Internal External Adjusted (Interval and Direction) Tripsa Tripsb Trips Trips
RESIDENTIAL TRIPS (Single-Family Initial Phase)
- Daily (Two-Way) 4,480 1,170 3,310 3,895
- AM Inbound 82 14 68 75
- AM Outbound 152 28 124 138
- PM Inbound 176 46 130 153
- PM Outbound 113 30 83 98

NON-RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE TRIPS
- Daily (Two-Way) 63,800 2,630 61,170 62,485
- AM Inbound 718 86 632 675
- AM Outbound 459 26 433 446
- PM Inbound 3,137 70 3,067 3,102
- PM Outbound 3,266 128 3,138 3,202
RESIDENTIAL TRIPS (Multi-Family Attached)
- Daily (Two-Way) 5,610 1,460 4,150 4,880
- AM Inbound 64 12 52 58
- AM Outbound 314 58 256 285
- PM Inbound 310 82 228 269
- PM Outbound 153 40 113 133

ALL TRIPS COMBINED
- Daily (Two-Way) 73,890 5,260 68,630 71,260
- AM Inbound 864 112 752 808
- AM Outbound 925 112 813 869
- PM Inbound 3,623 198 3,425 3,524
- PM Outbound 3,532 198 3,334 3,433
a. Unadjusted trips per Table 4-1, which have not been adjusted to remove trips captured internally that were counted twice. b. Each value shown was counted twice. Values shown must be reduced by 50 percent, then added to the external trips to identify the adjusted trips with the internal trips included once.

Pass-By Trip Adjustment
Pass-by trips will be attracted from the traffic passing the site on adjacent streets that provide direct access to the proposed non-residential development. Although the intercepted pass-by trips would be turning in and out of the site access points, they would not be new trips on the roadway network. Consequently, they were deducted from the background traffic when the site traffic was assigned to the adjacent roadways. The pass-by trips were included in the traffic volumes entering and exiting the development at the site access points. Pass-by trips must be included in the projected traffic volumes at the site access points to ensure that the design of the access points can accommodate the total number of vehicles expected to enter and exit the site during the peak hours.

The proportion of pass-by trips has been found to decrease with the size of the shopping center. While very large shopping centers (those with more than a million square feet of GLA) have been found to attract as little as 19 percent of their trips from passing traffic, small shopping centers (those with less than 100 T.S.F.) have been found to attract between 51 and 72 percent of their trips from traffic passing on the adjacent roadways. 2 The average pass-by rate for shopping centers is 34 percent. 3

2 Stover, Vergil G., Frank J. Koepke. Transportation and Land Development (Second Edition), ITE, 2002. 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Handbook - An ITE Recommended Practice; March 2001. [pp 48-57]. 12-2009
4-7
If the non-residential uses proposed are designed to support the surrounding community, approximately 25 percent of the commercial trips could come from pass-by traffic on the adjacent roadways with site access connections. Since the commercial uses anticipated on-site have not been established, a conservative pass-by rate of 15 percent was assumed.

The 68,630 external weekday trip generation shown in Table 4-2 includes an estimated 9,180 daily pass-by trips that would be using the adjacent roadways with or without development within Section 24. Therefore, upon project buildout, the site development would add 59,450 new primary external weekday trips to the through traffic volumes on the surrounding street system. During the morning peak hour on weekdays, the 120 pass-by trips on the adjacent streets, would reduce the number of new primary external trips added to the through traffic volumes on the surrounding street system by the proposed project to 688 inbound and 749 outbound trips. The 920 pass-by trips attracted to the site from the traffic during the evening peak hour on the adjacent streets would reduce the number of new primary external trips added to the surrounding street system by the project to 2,965 inbound and 2,874 outbound trips.

Modal Split
In all neighborhoods some trips are made without using motor vehicles. School-aged children may walk to school or walk to the home of a friend in the neighborhood. Some people walk their dogs while others walk for the health benefits or just to get outside and stretch their legs. Residents may ride bicycles for recreation or to get to and from school or work.

In dense residential neighborhoods and mixed-use commercial neighborhoods, a significant number of trips are made by pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists who combine stops for several purposes into a single trip. Consequently, mixed-use developments can reduce the number of vehicle trips made external to as well as internal to the neighborhood.

Optimizing land use and transportation planning requires development plans that address the need for homes to be provided in close proximity to schools, retail shops, business centers, and employment opportunities. The provision of complementary land uses within close proximity facilitates the use of travel modes other than private automobiles. People are more likely to walk, cycle, or use public transportation where the available transportation infrastructure makes alternative modes of travel attractive, convenient, and safe. The use of alternative travel modes reduces the demand for r oadway capacity.

The trip-generation data published by the ITE is based upon counts of motor vehicle trips associated with single-use developments where virtually all access is by private automobile and all parking is accommodated within the site. The growth of transit services in suburban areas, rising energy costs, and heightened public awareness of climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may affect future trip-generation rates. At the present time, adjustments for modal split are required only when a traffic study is being performed for developments in urban areas like Central Business Districts, where the use of non-automobile modes is significant.

The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) 2004 Origin Destination Survey found that 92 percent of all trips by Coachella Valley residents were made in private passenger cars (automobiles, sport utility vehicles, and pick-up trucks).

Less than one percent of the trips in the region were completed using public transportation. Four percent of the trips in the region were completed by walking. One percent of the trips were completed by riding a bicycle. The remaining trips were completed by school buses and other modes. The majority of casino visitors and shopping area visitors travel to the region by car. More than fifty percent of all trips completed by residents of the Coachella Valley region had a vehicle occupancy of one person.

Alternative transportation modes account for less than five percent of all trips generated in the vicinity of the project, and the variations from day-to-day in the future site traffic volumes would exceed five percent. Therefore, a modal split adjustment to reduce the site-generated traffic volumes was not included to ensure that the project-related impacts are not understated.

Site Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment
The trips generated by the proposed land development are distributed to geographic origins and destinations and then assigned to specific segments of the transportation network. The directional orientation of site traffic is determined by the geographical location of the site and the land uses that will serve as trip origins and destinations. The origin of trips inbound to the site can be affected by the size and type of development attracting the trip, the existing land uses in the surrounding area, the locations of competing developments, and the surrounding population, employment, and roadway conditions. 12-2010
4-8
The CVAG 2004 Origin Destination Survey identified the following top destinations for Coachella Valley residents:
• La Quinta Wal-Mart / Lowe’s / La Quinta High School (42,200 Daily Trips) • Town Center Mall / Palm Desert College of the Desert (36,600 Daily Trips) • Palm Desert Costco / Home Depot (19,200 Daily Trips)
• Eisenhower Medical Center (14,100 Daily Trips)
• Palm Springs International Airport (11,900 Daily Trips) The City of Rancho Mirage attracts 46,600 weekday trips or 6.1 percent of the weekday trips generated by households located throughout the Coachella Valley region. That represents 6.1 percent of all trips generated by the households located within the Coachella Valley. The CVAG 2004 Origin Destination Survey found that on a typical weekday, the origins of those household trips destined for Rancho Mirage included the following:
• Palm Desert (35%) • Indian Wells (3.2%)
• Rancho Mirage (33.7%) • La Quinta (2.4%)
• Palm Springs (10.5%) • Desert Hot Springs (2.3%)
• Cathedral City (8.9%) • Coachella (0.7%)
• Indio(4.3%)
The City of Rancho Mirage attracts 7.7 percent of the home-based work trips generated by households in the Coachella Valley. The City of Rancho Mirage attracts 31 percent more home-based work commute trips than the households within Rancho Mirage generate.

Households in the City of Rancho Mirage generate 5.8 percent of the shopping trips in the Coachella Valley region. The City of Rancho Mirage attracts six percent of the household shopping trips generated within the Coachella Valley. The City of Palm Desert attracts 35.4 percent of the household shopping trips. La Quinta and Cathedral City attract 12.3 percent and

12.8 percent, respectively, of the shopping trips made by households within the Coachella Valley.

The City of Rancho Mirage attracts more than twice as many recreational trips than its households generate. Indian Wells attracts 2.5 times the number of recreational trips generated by its households. Approximately 12.2 percent of all of the Coachella Valley household recreational trips are made to destinations within the City of Rancho Mirage.

The City of Rancho Mirage attracts 5.5 times the number of medical trips generated by its households. Rancho Mirage is the top medical destination in the Coachella Valley, capturing 31.9 percent of the home-based medical trips generated within the Coachella Valley.

Site Traffic Assignment
Site traffic was assigned to the surrounding street system based upon the location of the existing and future land uses that would attract site traffic and generate trips destined to the site. The proposed site access l ocations, any anticipated left-turn
restrictions at the proposed site driveways and access to regional transportation facilities were also considered in the site traffic assignment.

The proposed initial phase of development would occur within Planning Area 8 and generate approximately 4,480 weekday trips. Planning Area 8 would be developed as a gated community with two access connections to the surrounding roadways located opposite existing intersections. The distribution of the site-generated traffic associated with the initial phase of development is shown in Figure 4-1.

The primary access for the initial phase is proposed to Dinah Shore Drive, opposite the existing signalized access to the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort [Intersection 12]. This site access is projected to serve approximately 57 percent of the traffic generated by the initial phase (2,550 ADT). Access to Los Alamos Road would be opposite the existing unsignalized intersection at Via Bella [Intersection 8]. Approximately 43 percent of the traffic generated by the initial phase (1,930 ADT) would enter and leave Planning Area 8 via this access connection. This intersection would remain unsignalized upon completion of the initial phase of development.

The active adult community proposed in Planning Area 8 will ultimately have access to Bob Hope Drive via the westerly extension of Casino Road between Planning Areas 2 and 3 (to the north) and Planning Areas 4 and 5 (to the south). This 12-2011
Figure 4-1
Site Traffic Distribution
(Initial Phase)
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Legend
Percent of Primary Project-Related Trips5.7

22.0 23.0 23.0 18.0 18.0

8.0 15.0

13.0 44.0 44.0

1.0 5.0

5.0 18.0

0.5 6.5

8.0 2.0 Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.

Da Vall Dr. Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
Project
Site
Casino
WestinResort VillasWestin
Mission Hills
Via
Bella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol

6.0 20.0 20.0

4.3 10.0

5.7 8.0

8.0 16.0

5.0 2.0

3.0 41.0

8.0 8.0

10.0 13.0

43.0 57.0

0.0 12-2012
4-9
access would ultimately accommodate approximately 35 percent of the traffic generated by the initial phase (1,570 ADT) and provide the most direct connection to Interstate 10 for regional trips.

The composite directional distribution of all project-related or “site” traffic with full development of the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan is shown in Figure 4-2. The percentages shown in Figure 4-2 reflect the combination of all new inbound and outbound external project-related trips to be added to the surrounding street system. The percentages shown were determined from the combined total of 59,450 primary external weekday trips generated by the proposed project.

Figure 4-3 illustrates the distribution of the external site traffic to each of the proposed site access connections proposed along the site boundaries. It can be seen from Figure 4-3 that the land use and internal circulation plan focused the site traffic to the site access connections along Bob Hope Drive (49.1 percent of site traffic) and Ramon Road (32.7 percent of site traffic) by locating the higher intensity land uses along these two abutting arterials. The proposed land use plan and site access plan minimized the amount of site traffic that would use Los Alamos Road (6.5 percent) and Dinah Shore Drive (11.7 percent) by locating the lower intensity uses along these roadways.

Weekday Site Traffic Volumes
Table 4-3 provides the daily site-generated traffic volumes on the roadways adjacent to the key intersections on a typical weekday in the peak season. Existing peak season weekday traffic volumes are also shown in Table 4-3 that represent existing non-site (‘through”) traffic volumes. Site-generated traffic volumes are shown in Table 4-3 for both the initial phase of the proposed development as well as full development.

The site traffic volumes at each of the key intersections projected to occur during the morning and evening peak hours on a typical weekday in the peak season are shown in Figure 4-4. The intersection turning movement volumes shown in Figure 4-4 would be generated by the initial phase of the proposed development. The weekday peak hour turning movement volumes shown in Figure 4-4 were added to the existing non-site traffic volumes and also to the future year 2022 through traffic volumes to evaluate the impact of the initial phase of development on traffic operations at the key intersections.

Figure 4-5 shows the weekday peak hour site traffic volumes at the key intersections and the proposed full-turn site access intersections with full development of the project. These site traffic volumes were added to t he existing traffic volumes and
also added to the horizon year 2035 through traffic projections to assess the impact of the project on the surrounding street system. Figure 4-6 provides the site traffic volumes with full development of the Section 24 Specific Plan at the right-in/right- out driveways proposed along Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, and Dinah Shore Drive.

4.3 Existing Plus Site Traffic Projections
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it could cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio of the streets, or congestion at intersections). With existing traffic volumes and site-generated traffic volumes, the significance of the effect of site traffic on the environment can be assessed. Evaluating the change in traffic operations at the key intersections before and after site- generated traffic is added to the existing baseline traffic can reveal the significance of project-related effects on the environment without introducing uncertainties related to cumulative developments or projected increases in background traffic volumes.

Existing Plus Initial Phase Traffic Projections
Figure 4-7 shows the existing plus initial phase peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections. These volumes include existing traffic volumes (from Figure 3-4) as well as the site traffic volumes generated by the initial phase of the proposed project (from Figure 4-4). Table 4-3 identifies the existing plus initial phase weekday traffic volumes on area roadways.

Existing Plus Project Buildout Traffic Projections
Figure 4-8 depicts the existing plus site buildout peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections. These volumes include existing traffic volumes (from Figure 3-4) as well as the site traffic volumes generated by buildout of the proposed project (from Figure 4-5). Table 4-3 provides the existing plus project buildout weekday traffic volumes on area roadways. 12-2013
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Figure 4-2
Site Traffic Distribution
(Project Buildout)
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Legend
Percent of Primary Daily Trips5.7

14.6 21.9 22.1 20.9 20.2

8.2 10.4

7.3 8.1 6.2

2.0 7.3

7.3 26.9

1.0 0.9

9.3 11.3 3.0 Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.

Da Vall Dr. Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
Project
Site
Casino
WestinResort VillasWestin
Mission Hills
Via
Bella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol

8.3 14.3 14.3

3.1 7.1

4.1 1.8 2.6

24.3 27.9

14.1 9.7

5.7 3.7

3.8 0.2

9.0 5.3

24.8 14.6

18.6 12-2014
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
North
Figure 4-3
Site Buildout Traffic Distribution
At Proposed Site Access Locations
Intersection Site Access Location Site Traffic (%)
8 East of Via Bella 1.4
9 West of Casino 22.9
12 North of Westin Mission Hills 2.2
13 North of Westin Resort Villas 6.4
18 Street “C” @ Ramon Road 9.9
19 Street “D” @ Ramon Road 14.5
20 Street “D” @ Bob Hope Drive 11.5
21 Street “E” @ Bob Hope Drive 6.8
22 Street “A” @ Los Alamos Road 0.7
23 Street “B” @ Los Alamos Road 4.4
Access A Ramon Road 2.2
Access B Ramon Road 3.5
Access C Ramon Road 2.6
Access D Bob Hope Drive 3.9
Access E Bob Hope Drive 2.2
Access F Bob Hope Drive 1.8
Access G Dinah Shore Drive 3.1
ProjectSite
Casino
Street “E”
Street “A”
St.
“B”
Street “C”
Street “D”
Casino
Street “D”
5 6
8 9
11 12
13 14
2322
18 19
20 21
Access A
Access B
Access C
Access D
Access E
Access F
Access G
12-2015
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
North
Legend
Morning/Evening Peak
Hour Turning Volume
5/8
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 Westin Resort Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
1314151617
7 123456
89101112
Figure 4-4
Site Traffic Volumes
Initial Phase
2/4
0/0
3/2
18/14
36/77
0/0
0/0
11/23
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
31/67
2/5
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
4/9
5/3
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
7/14
0/0
0/0
12/9
0/0
3/2
12/9
8/6
2/4
0/0
0/0
0/0
7/14
0/0
4/9
0/0
0/0
5/3
15/11
2/5
8/6
4/9
8/18
36/77
0/0
0/0
67/49
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
16/35
0/0
0/0
0/0
7/14
12/9
31/22
24/18
0/0
0/0
13/28
16/35
0/0
30/23
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
5/10
0/0
0/0
0/0
3/8
7/5
9/6
15/11
0/0
0/0
8/18
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
24/18
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
13/28
0/0
0/0
0/0
11/23
1/2
0/0
2/1
15/11
0/0
1/2
1/2
0/0
6/12
14/30
12/9
15/11
0/0
6/4
6/4
0/0
0/0
12/25
0/0
0/0
8/18
2/1
17/3
3/2
32/24
0/0
2/4
1/2
0/0
0/0
18/37
1/2
0/0
2/1
2/1
0/0
35/26
0/0
0/0
0/0
19/40
0/0
15/32
0/0
19/41
27/20
35/26
57/43
0/0
8/6
67/49
0/0
20/15
0/0
0/0
0/0
12-2016
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
North
Legend
Morning/Evening Peak
Hour Turning Volume
5/8
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 2322
18 19
20 21
Westin Resort Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
Street “C” @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Retail Access
Los Alamos Road @
Residential Access
Bob Hope Drive @
Street “E”
Bob Hope Drive @
Street “D”
Street “D” @
Ramon Road
131415161718
7 1920212223
123456
89101112
Figure 4-5
Site Traffic Volumes
Upon Project Buildout
20/88
0/0
21/85
118/483
18/35
44/195
0/0
34/22
0/0
16/11
9/17
43/199
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
25/17
0/0
6/4
14/26
38/146
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
3/7
36/148
0/0
0/0
6/26
0/0
0/0
109/473
83/355
121/442
4/27
82/321
0/0
88/363
84/384
2/2
65/232
19/60
1/3
17/108
3/1
1/2
56/242
0/0
16/63
23/106
0/0
10/30
50/176
8/32
36/118
29/124
44/184
11/58
36/147
0/0
28/135
0/0
26/83
40/194
37/28
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
86/360
47/227
104/471
25/127
26/120
50/256
72/320
28/103
0/0
76/312
87/367
8/31
9/30
36/95
20/37
0/0
84/375
14/43
0/0
100/423
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
112/408
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
29/121
0/0
0/0
0/0
21/91
24/87
32/116
56/204
0/0
0/0
50/211
17/78
0/0
0/0
11/80
89/270
7/54
11/52
0/0
0/0
0/0
69/287
0/0
0/0
0/0
126/553
13/58
0/0
14/57
103/426
0/0
7/30
13/58
0/0
146/627
92/420
37/193
57/252
32/143
82/317
93/346
34/142
0/0
139/611
0/0
0/0
99/436
14/57
117/482
22/111
119/410
20/109
25/111
1/1
0/0
0/0
102/429
1/1
24/109
1/1
1/1
8/3
161/631
2/7
0/0
0/0
151/649
110/502
26/115
112/508
40/148
27/115
59/132
65/262
68/330
83/395
40/199
50/191
69/325
136/561
32/156
55/257
41/176
117/490
48/233
151/626
17/87
35/163
23/82
131/560
34/165
18/8
8/3
4/16
44/169
2/7
59/158
16/118
6/38
24/115
42/148
8/37
70/129
12-2017
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
North
11/80
160/659
17/78
7/54
165/723
163/656
11/52
7/54
165/725
17/78
32/98
15/107
65/162
136/616
108/487
23/104
133/592
116/508
17/78
11/80
133/587
15/107
122/545
17/78
7/54
157/637
34/156
172/747
Legend
Morning/Evening Peak
Hour Turning Volume
Proposed Right Turn Only
Site Access Connection
5/8
Figure 4-6
Site Traffic Volumes Upon Project Buildout
At Proposed Right Turn Only Driveways
5 6
8 9
11 12
13 14
2322
18 19
20 21
Access A
Access B
Access C
Access D
Access E
Access F
Access G
Access G @
Dinah Shore Drive
Access A @
Ramon Road
Access B @
Ramon Road
Access C @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Access F
Bob Hope Drive @
Access E
Bob Hope Drive @
Access D
12-2018
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
North
Legend
Morning/Evening Peak
Hour Turning Volume
5/8
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 Westin Resort Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
Figure 4-7
Existing Plus Initial Phase
Weekday Traffic Volumes
452/378
66/104
274/421
529/529
36/77
487/873
36/30
13/39
593/705
28/15
22/56
0/0
7/43
31/67
74/32
12/11
11/12
0/0
15/16
4/9
64/50
11/24
15/27
0/0
7/35
72/111
937/483
0/0
6/34
321/945
0/0
32/111
426/706
72/53
61/52
314/193
232/113
105/79
529/610
172/139
67/52
146/305
107/180
18/56
496/890
42/29
72/31
52/42
574/674
563/964
16/36
0/0
670/809
7/4
18/27
3/8
51/180
401/641
100/110
103/91
785/384
54/80
77/80
430/574
167/141
61/182
200/635
118/251
511/932
57/27
U Turns 0/4
549/823
20/11
32/46
7/1
259/466
157/345
38/35
369/260
1299/773
449/524
304/721
241/290
147/382
17/24
434/1116
126/405
51/56
391/402
171/88
63/58
781/509
83/77
113/163
393/459
133/97
24/80
258/740
62/153
189/140
9/4
482/499
225/300
156/250
362/264
120/384
12/20
338/317
103/60
34/62
685/360
400/452
87/102
685/708
205/169
83/198
155/474
82/247
91/138
624/704
255/124
6/5
507/264
27/46
223/513
99/232
522/740
167/99
220/110
282/120
47/23
24/37
626/712
133/77
88/70
118/270
78/148
113/98
667/892
142/101
210/162
163/139
775/862
783/998
81/60
889/846
49/53
82/56
46/62
57/43
0/0
8/6
67/49
0/0
20/15
0/0
0/0
0/0
1314151617
7 123456
89101112
12-2019
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
North
Legend
Morning/Evening Peak
Hour Turning Volume
5/8
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 Westin Resort Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
Figure 4-8
Existing Plus Project Buildout
Weekday Traffic Volumes
470/462
66/104
292/504
629/998
18/35
531/1068
36/30
34/22
0/0
16/11
11/33
636/904
28/15
22/56
0/0
7/43
25/17
0/0
6/4
14/26
110/173
12/11
11/12
0/0
15/16
3/7
95/195
11/24
15/27
6/26
7/35
72/111
1039/942
83/355
121/442
4/27
82/321
6/34
397/1299
84/384
31/111
479/929
83/107
60/51
331/301
235/114
106/81
578/838
172/139
79/106
169/411
107/180
23/83
531/1055
48/56
100/143
77/157
610/840
11/58
563/1034
16/36
28/135
0/0
26/83
40/194
640/788
7/4
18/27
0/0
3/8
123/500
413/709
100/110
179/403
872/751
55/97
74/101
435/647
163/160
61/182
284/1010
119/266
595/1320
57/27
U Turns 0/4
631/1208
20/11
32/46
7/1
259/466
181/456
38/35
369/260
1299/773
467/607
321/803
264/400
188/575
17/24
434/1116
168/598
68/134
391/402
171/88
74/138
846/761
90/131
124/215
393/459
133/97
24/80
314/999
62/153
189/140
9/4
597/1029
237/356
156/250
374/320
208/799
12/20
344/345
115/116
34/62
825/975
478/842
112/286
727/949
237/312
159/511
242/816
116/389
91/138
751/1290
255/124
6/5
598/682
39/102
323/982
118/341
609/1126
187/208
243/217
282/119
47/23
24/37
710/1104
133/76
112/179
117/270
77/148
121/101
793/1497
144/108
210/162
163/139
907/1471
893/1500
92/143
1001/1354
70/160
82/151
70/168
1314151617
7 123456
89101112
12-2020
4-10
Table 4-3
Existing Weekday Traffic Projections With and Without Site Traffic (Peak Season)
Roadway Segment Existing Project Existing+ Project Existing+Project (2013) Initial Phase Initial Phase Buildout Buildout Da Vall Drive
- North of Ramon Road 10,430 130 10,560 2,260 12,690
- South of Ramon Road 10,910 90 11,000 2,230 13,140
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 11,550 90 11,640 2,230 13,780 - South of Dinah Shore Drive 11,820 220 12,040 3,410 15,230 Rattler Road
- North of Ramon Road 2,710 10 2,720 130 2,840
Los Alamos Road
- South of Ramon Road 1,820 1,840 3,660 5,380 7,200
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 2,000 360 2,360 3,160 5,160 Bob Hope Drive
- North of I-10 Westbound Ramps 12,530 40 12,570 1,160 13,690 - North of I-10 Eastbound Ramps 17,370 560 17,930 11,040 28,410 - North of Ramon Road 18,750 810 19,560 15,970 34,720
- South of Ramon Road 19,130 360 19,490 16,620 35,750
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 17,860 360 18,220 14,470 32,330 - South of Dinah Shore Drive 20,340 720 21,060 8,390 28,730 - North of Gerald Ford Drive 19,120 720 19,840 8,390 27,510 - South of Gerald Ford Drive 20,090 720 20,810 5,790 25,880 Key Largo
- South of Dinah Shore Drive 1,340 0 1,340 0 1,340
Monterey Avenue
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 46,340 190 46,530 1,830 48,170 - South of Dinah Shore Drive 31,620 450 32,070 4,260 35,880 Ramon Road
- West of Da Vall Drive 20,340 990 21,330 8,680 29,020
- East of Da Vall Drive 23,760 1,030 24,790 13,040 36,800 - West of Los Alamos Road 24,030 1,030 25,060 13,160 37,190 - East of Los Alamos Road 24,680 810 25,490 12,410 37,090 - East of Bob Hope Drive 17,180 360 17,540 6,700 23,880 - East of EB I-10 Ramp 11,230 90 11,320 1,750 12,980
Dinah Shore Drive
- West of Da Vall Drive 22,370 360 22,730 4,890 27,260
- East of Da Vall Drive 17,950 670 18,620 6,200 24,150
- West of Los Alamos Road 18,350 670 19,020 6,200 24,550 - East of Los Alamos Road 18,070 580 18,650 4,360 22,430 - East of Westin Mission Hills 18,680 1,970 20,650 4,820 23,500 - West of Bob Hope Drive 18,570 1,970 20,540 3,700 22,270 - East of Bob Hope Drive 18,800 900 19,700 8,520 27,320 - East of Key Largo 19,150 900 20,050 8,520 27,670
- West of Monterey Avenue 26,570 900 27,470 8,520 35,090 - East of Monterey Avenue 16,470 260 16,730 2,440 18,910 Gerald Ford Drive
- West of Bob Hope Drive 16,840 0 16,840 1,040 17,880
- East of Bob Hope Drive 14,900 0 14,900 1,560 16,460
Interstate 10
- West of Bob Hope Drive 100,000 440 100,440 8,720 108,720 - East of Ramon Road 102,000 580 102,580 11,060 113,060 12-2021
4-11
Table 4-3 (Continued)
Existing Weekday Traffic Projections With and Without Site Traffic (Peak Season)
Roadway Segment Existing Project Existing+ Project Existing+Project (2013) Initial Phase Initial Phase Buildout Buildout
Bob Hope Dr. I-10 Ramps
- Westbound On-Ramp 5,990 220 6,210 4,360 10,350
- Westbound Off-Ramp 8,600 290 8,890 5,530 14,130
- Eastbound On-Ramp 2,070 20 2,090 580 2,650
- Eastbound Off-Ramp 7,570 220 7,790 4,360 11,930
Ramon Road I-10 Ramps
- Eastbound On-Ramp 7,970 270 8,240 4,950 12,920
Via Bella
- West of Los Alamos Road 730 0 730 0 730
- East of Los Alamos Road 0 1,930 1,930 830 830
Casino
- West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 0 13,630 13,630
- East of Bob Hope Drive 2,050 0 2,050 520 2,570
Westin Mission Hills
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 2,550 2,550 1,320 1,320
- South of Dinah Shore Drive 1,580 0 1,580 0 1,580
Westin Resort and Villas
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 0 3,800 3,800
- South of Dinah Shore Drive 800 0 800 0 800
Street A
- East of Los Alamos Road 0 0 0 420 420
Street B
- East of Los Alamos Road 0 0 0 2,600 2,600
Street C
- South of Ramon Road 0 0 0 5,880 5,880
Street D
- South of Ramon Road 0 0 0 8,630 8,630
- West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 0 6,860 6,860
Street E
- West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 0 4,060 4,060

4.4 Future Through Traffic Projections
Future Traffic Volume Forecast Methodology
Through (non-site) traffic volumes are made up of trips having neither an origin nor a destination within the project site.

Non-site traffic includes existing traffic and future traffic generated by developments other than the proposed project. The traffic count program quantified the existing through traffic volumes. Regional and local traffic forecasting models are a good source of future traffic projections.

The assumptions used in any model must be reviewed to determine if the future projections include any future traffic associated with development within the project site that was anticipated by local and regional general plans and regional growth forecasts. If site traffic is included, it must be removed to develop future non-site traffic projections. 12-2022
4-12
RIVTAM provides a source for future travel demand estimates that can be used in preparing Federal and California environmental clearance documents. The most recent socioeconomic input data was used in RIVTAM. It covers the entire six-county SCAG Region. The model was calibrated and validated using year 2007 travel statistics. The use of RIVTAM to identify the future growth in traffic demand was determined to be the most comprehensive approach and the most appropriate method of projecting future traffic volumes associated with development within the surrounding area and Riverside County for the horizon year 2035. Background traffic volumes for the year 2022 were developed by interpolating between existing traffic volumes and year 2035 non-site traffic volumes, assuming that the growth in the travel demand is geometric.

The Riverside County Transportation Commission recognizes use of the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model to analyze traffic impacts associated with development proposals or land use plans. Riverside County and the members of CVAG have approved RIVTAM as the regional traffic model for Riverside County, including the Coachella Valley. Future traffic projections from RIVTAM represent the best available traffic projections for the study area and the horizon year 2035.

Base year 2008 and future horizon year 2035 land use forecasts were provided by individual jurisdictions and Riverside County for use in developing the socioeconomic input data required by RIVTAM. The 2035 SCAG population and employment growth projections were allocated by area, based on the existing and proposed future land use forecasts identified by each jurisdiction. Riverside County planners provided estimates for Tribal lands and unincorporated areas.

To ensure consistency with the forecasts being used for projects throughout the Coachella Valley and Riverside County, the RIVTAM was used to forecast the horizon year 2035 travel demand within for the study area. 4 The socioeconomic data (SED) used by this travel demand forecasting model were modified for the project site to reflect project buildout conditions with development at the maximum density/intensity allowed by the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan. The RIVTAM Traffic Analysis Zones and socioeconomic assumptions for the proposed project are provided in Appendix 2.

RIVTAM has a detailed zonal system, a portion of which includes the study area, as shown in Appendix 2. It uses updated household trip generation and attraction models, an expanded modal choice model, a parking-cost model and improved factors for representing peaking characteristics. Trip type variables for home-based work trips include: h ousehold size, household income, and the number of workers. Home-based non-work trip and non-home-based trip variables include: the number of adults, workers, children, income, and vehicle availability.

The boundaries for the Section 24 Specific Plan conform to RIVTAM Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 4637. Prior to the SED changes made in RIVTAM to evaluate the proposed project, the SED for TAZ 4637 included: 97 households, a population of 257 residents, and a total employment of 246 (jobs). After modifications were made to reflect project completion at the maximum intensity/density allowed by the Section 24 Specific Plan, the SED for TAZ 4637 included: 2406 households, a population of 4,331 residents, and a total employment of 6,277 (jobs).

Year 2035 RIVTAM Projections
The RIVTAM horizon year 2035 daily traffic projections include both site traffic and the growth in background traffic on the roadway network. However, determining the significance of site traffic impacts requires an evaluation of the future peak hour turning movement volumes at the key intersections within the study area. To determine the future peak hour turning movement volumes, the site was modeled using data from recent peak hour traffic counts made at the key intersections and ITE trip-generation rates to estimate the future weekday and peak hour site traffic volumes as well their inbound and outbound directional distribution.

Using a detailed manual traffic assignment consistent with the distribution developed from the RIVTAM projections, peak hour and daily site traffic volumes were distributed to the surrounding street system. By subtracting the daily site traffic from the RIVTAM projections, the weekday “through” traffic volumes for the horizon year 2035 were determined for the roadway network within the study area.

Year 2035 non-site peak hour turning movement projections were developed by assuming that the increase in peak hour volumes between the year 2013 and the year 2035 would reflect the increase in the daily volumes. Each existing turning

4 RIVTAM was developed by Iteris, Inc. and AFSHA Consulting, Inc., for the Riverside County Transportation Department, CVAG, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the Western Riverside Council of Governments. AFSHA Consulting, Inc. developed new RIVTAM projections for the horizon year 2035 with revised socioeconomic data for TAZ 4637 reflecting buildout of the project site at the maximum development intensity that would be allowed by the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan. The previous socioeconomic data and the trips associated with that data were replaced. 12-2023
4-13
movement volume was multiplied by the ratio of the future year 2035 daily traffic projection divided by the current weekday traffic volume on both intersection legs associated with that turning movement. The increase in non-site peak hour turning volumes was normalized to the growth in daily traffic volumes to ensure that the future peak hour volumes would accurately reflect the overall increase in daily traffic volumes. In any instances where the current volume exceeded the future volume projection (or a future projection was not available from RIVTAM) the current volume was increased by ten percent and assumed to reflect the future year 2035 non-site traffic volume.

The daily project-related traffic volumes were subtracted from the year 2035+project daily RIVTAM projections to identify horizon year 2035 through traffic volumes. For any roadway segments not included in RIVTAM (such as Rattler Road and Key Largo Avenue) a ten percent growth in the existing traffic volumes was assumed. The through traffic volumes for the year 2022 shown in Figure 4-9 were determined by interpolation between the existing traffic volumes and the horizon year 2035 through traffic projections, assuming the traffic growth is geometric. The horizon year 2035 non-site peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4-10.

Cumulative Traffic Projections
Although the increase in travel demand associated with development throughout Southern California, Riverside County, and the cities within Coachella Valley was addressed with the RIVTAM year 2035 traffic projections, the peak hour turning volumes associated with two cumulative projects within the study area that will be completed in the near-term may not be adequately addressed at the key intersections by the RIVTAM projections. The Pelagic Residential project, Tentative Tract Map 36553, includes 122 single-family detached dwelling units and is located on the west side of Rattler Road, north of Ramon Road. The Rancho Mirage Rehabilitation Hospital (Tentative Parcel Map 31761) is located on the southeast corner of the intersection Da Vall Drive and Ramon Road, and includes an access on both Ramon Road and Da Vall Drive.

Development details related to the two cumulative projects were obtained from the City of Rancho Mirage “Development Activity Summary” dated February 5, 2014. The trips that would be generated by these two approved projects were estimated, as shown in Table 4-4. They were assigned to the surrounding street system and added to the future year 2022 non-site traffic volumes developed from the RIVTAM projections.

Table 4-4
Cumulative Weekday Trip-Generation Forecasta
Land Use Category Land Use Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Daily Quantityb In Out Total In Out Total 2-Way

PELAGIC RESIDENTIAL
TTM36553/PDP13005 122 DU 24 71 95 79 46 126 1,250
RANCHO MIRAGE REHAB. HOSPITAL
TPM31761/PDP07012 c 64.768 TSF 43 30 73 31 43 74 1,070
TOTAL 67 101 168 110 89 200 2,320
a. Based upon trip-generation data published by the ITE in Trip Generation (8th Edition, December, 2008). The ITE Land Use Codes (LUC) assumed include: LUC 210 for Single Family-Detached Residential Dwellings; LUC 610 for Hospital uses. b. DU=Dwelling Units. TSF=Thousand Square Feet of Building Floor Area.

As shown in Table 4-4, the two cumulative projects would generate a combined total of approximately 2,320 weekday trips when completed. Of that total, 168 trips (67 inbound and 101 outbound) are expected to occur during the morning peak hour and 200 trips (110 inbound and 89 outbound) are expected to occur during the evening peak hour. The traffic volumes generated by these two cumulative projects were distributed to the adjacent streets based on the distribution of peak hour counts made at the intersection of Rattler Road and Ramon Road. Fifty-seven percent of the traffic from both cumulative projects was assigned to the west and forty-three percent of the traffic was assigned to the east. The cumulative traffic was added to the year 2022 non-site traffic volumes developed from RIVTAM to determine the year 2022 through traffic volumes.
12-2024
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
North
Legend
Morning/Evening Peak
Hour Turning Volume
5/8
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 Westin Resort Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
1314151617
7 123456
89101112
Figure 4-9
Through Traffic Volumes
Year 2022
533/444
77/121
323/497
638/638
0/0
562/1006
38/33
3/22
686/812
31/16
24/60
0/0
8/46
0/0
131/54
14/13
13/14
0/0
18/20
0/0
106/93
13/30
16/30
0/0
8/40
79/122
1233/631
0/0
7/39
414/1249
0/0
34/122
449/757
76/56
67/55
356/220
251/124
114/90
567/648
190/153
75/51
167/346
118/198
19/75
568/1048
57/35
88/35
66/45
670/783
551/928
16/37
0/0
632/794
8/4
19/28
3/9
73/249
429/678
121/135
145/129
1013/502
54/76
74/82
446/618
159/137
74/223
260/828
116/247
652/1166
64/31
U Turns 0/12
687/1039
22/12
36/52
8/1
271/486
166/363
40/37
385/271
1373/814
482/555
321/769
255/308
150/409
18/25
459/1176
133/429
64/70
496/512
201/104
79/72
855/557
98/91
135/194
498/584
154/112
28/94
279/806
71/177
252/187
12/5
646/665
313/421
203/326
504/370
144/496
15/26
431/405
123/70
43/80
866/443
542/604
112/136
874/905
275/227
93/235
190/600
114/329
120/176
876/957
321/153
7/6
624/307
35/59
298/693
134/315
690/980
222/131
301/150
350/146
62/30
32/48
848/957
163/91
115/99
146/335
112/199
140/145
917/1228
193/135
280/209
199/202
1092/1166
1094/1414
102/44
1258/1194
51/20
84/55
18/60
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
12-2025
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
North
Legend
Morning/Evening Peak
Hour Turning Volume
5/8
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 2322
18 19
20 21
Westin Resort Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
Street “C” @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Retail Access
Los Alamos Road @
Residential Access
Bob Hope Drive @
Street “E”
Bob Hope Drive @
Street “D”
Street “D” @
Ramon Road
131415161718
7 1920212223
123456
89101112
Figure 4-10
Through Traffic Volumes
Year 2035
567/470
77/120
341/527
599/603
0/0
587/1048
41/35
0/0
0/0
0/0
5/30
715/846
33/17
25/63
0/0
8/49
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
175/74
16/15
14/17
0/0
20/23
0/0
142/128
14/35
17/31
0/0
10/46
83/127
1114/574
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
8/45
356/1077
0/0
34/122
456/770
76/56
67/54
366/226
256/125
116/90
575/659
200/162
75/51
170/356
125/210
20/84
594/1096
63/39
96/38
72/49
699/819
0/0
580/976
17/39
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
663/836
8/5
20/30
0/0
3/9
1232/1505
0/0
1452/1468
0/0
0/0
0/0
69/240
453/713
117/130
138/122
956/468
58/81
79/87
469/650
159/137
72/214
243/774
117/248
148/166
739/1310
73/35
97/194
2/2
30/59
45/51
775/1169
25/13
41/59
2/2
9/1
285/513
167/368
42/38
405/286
1429/850
491/567
327/788
255/312
146/408
18/27
477/1228
129/426
67/73
684/713
223/116
82/76
840/547
105/98
144/208
688/813
169/123
32/105
271/792
79/196
301/232
11/5
693/727
440/621
214/352
709/547
135/494
15/26
476/446
120/68
44/82
818/419
571/626
110/139
946/988
258/213
90/229
180/567
103/311
141/202
952/1003
336/158
8/6
605/291
34/59
320/738
172/411
809/1176
253/149
392/190
425/177
78/38
40/60
1003/1109
188/105
134/106
175/405
111/208
148/144
1133/1493
193/135
280/209
209/202
1355/1417
1281/1636
119/51
1455/1388
59/23
98/64
20/70
1247/1524
0/0
1470/1486
0/0
0/0
0/0
1139/612
0/0
0/0
0/0
383/1178
0/0
1261/678
0/0
0/0
0/0
424/1303
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
210/87
0/0
141/155
0/0
0/0
0/0
210/87
0/0
141/155
12-2026
4-14
Any location where the year 2035 non-site traffic projection did not specifically include the traffic from the two cumulative projects was identified by comparing the 2035 non-site traffic volumes to the year 2022 plus cumulative traffic volumes. At two locations [Intersections 3 and 4] the year 2035 through traffic volumes were increased to reflect the higher year 2022+cumulative traffic volumes.

Year 2022 Through Traffic Projections
The existing peak hour turning movements were proportionately increased to reflect year 2022 peak hour through turning movement volumes, based upon the difference between the existing daily volumes and the year 2022 through daily traffic projections. Figure 4-9 presents the peak hour through traffic volumes at the key intersections, prior to the addition of site traffic generated by the initial phase of the proposed project.

Horizon Year 2035 Through Traffic Projections
The existing peak hour turning movements were proportionately increased to reflect year 2035 through peak hour turning movement volumes, based upon the difference between the existing daily volumes and the year 2035 daily through traffic projections. Figure 4-10 illustrates the peak hour through traffic volumes at the key intersections in the year 2035, prior to the addition of site traffic.

4.5 Future Total Traffic Projections
Once the through traffic volumes were projected for each of the future analysis years, the traffic volumes generated by the proposed project were added to the roadways and intersections in the study area to obtain the total future traffic volumes.

This process reflected the location of each proposed land use within the site as well as the proposed internal circulation and site access plans.

Year 2022 Total Traffic Projections
Figure 4-11 depicts the year 2022 total peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections. These volumes include through traffic volumes for the year 2022 (from Figure 4-9) as well as the site traffic volumes generated by the initial phase of the proposed project (from Figure 4-4). Since the initial phase of project development does not include shopping opportunities on-site, the site access turning volumes for the senior housing development may exceed the year 2035 volumes. Table 4-5 identifies the year 2022 weekday through traffic volumes, and total traffic volumes with the proposed project on the roadways within the study area.

Horizon Year 2035 Total Traffic Projections
Figure 4-12 depicts the horizon year 2035 total peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections and the site access intersections. These volumes include year 2035 through traffic volumes as well as site traffic volumes upon buildout of the proposed project (from Figure 4-5). Table 4-5 identifies t he horizon year 2035 weekday through traffic volumes, and total traffic volumes with the proposed project on the roadways within the study area.

Horizon Year 2035 Total Traffic Projections By Alternative Table 4-6 provides the total traffic projections by development alternative for various roadway segments within the study area in the horizon year 2035. In addition, ambient traffic projections for the year 2035 are shown that assume no on-site development. The traffic projections shown in Table 4-6 reflect weekday conditions during the peak season with three development alternatives other than the proposed development. These alternatives include development per: (1) the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan land use designations; (2) the Riverside County General Plan land use designations; and (3) the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan land uses with 1,200 conventional (without age restrictions) single-family detached dwelling units within Planning Area 8.
12-2027
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
North
Legend
Morning/Evening Peak
Hour Turning Volume
5/8
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 Westin Resort Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
1314151617
7 123456
89101112
Figure 4-11
Total Traffic Volumes
Year 2022 With Initial Phase
535/448
77/121
326/499
656/652
36/77
562/1006
38/33
14/45
686/812
31/16
24/60
0/0
8/46
31/67
133/59
14/13
13/14
0/0
18/20
4/9
111/96
13/30
16/30
0/0
8/40
79/122
1240/645
0/0
7/39
426/1258
0/0
37/124
461/766
84/62
69/59
356/220
251/124
114/90
574/662
190/153
79/60
167/346
118/198
24/78
583/1059
59/40
96/41
70/54
678/801
587/1005
16/37
0/0
699/843
8/4
19/28
3/9
73/249
445/713
121/135
145/129
1013/502
61/90
86/91
477/640
183/155
74/223
260/828
129/275
668/1201
64/31
U Turns 0/12
717/1062
22/12
36/52
8/1
271/486
171/373
40/37
385/271
1373/814
485/563
328/774
264/314
165/420
18/25
459/1176
141/447
64/70
496/512
201/104
79/72
879/575
98/91
135/194
498/584
154/112
28/94
292/834
71/177
252/187
12/5
657/688
314/423
203/326
506/371
159/507
15/26
432/407
124/72
43/80
872/455
556/634
124/145
889/916
275/227
99/239
196/604
114/329
120/176
888/982
321/153
7/6
632/325
37/60
315/706
137/317
722/1004
222/131
303/154
351/148
62/30
32/48
866/994
164/93
115/99
148/336
114/200
140/145
952/1254
193/135
280/209
199/202
1111/1206
1094/1414
117/76
1258/1194
70/61
111/75
53/86
57/43
0/0
8/6
67/49
0/0
20/15
0/0
0/0
0/0
12-2028
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
North
Legend
Morning/Evening Peak
Hour Turning Volume
5/8
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 2322
18 19
20 21
Westin Resort Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
Street “C” @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Retail Access
Los Alamos Road @
Residential Access
Bob Hope Drive @
Street “E”
Bob Hope Drive @
Street “D”
Street “D” @
Ramon Road
131415161718
7 1920212223
123456
89101112
Figure 4-12
Total Traffic Volumes
Year 2035
587/558
77/120
362/612
717/1086
18/35
631/1243
41/35
34/22
0/0
16/11
14/47
758/1045
33/17
25/63
0/0
8/49
25/17
0/0
6/4
14/26
213/220
16/15
14/17
0/0
20/23
3/7
178/276
14/35
17/31
6/26
10/46
83/127
1223/1047
83/355
121/442
4/27
82/321
8/45
444/1440
84/384
36/124
521/1002
95/116
68/57
383/334
259/126
117/92
631/901
200/162
91/114
193/462
125/210
30/114
644/1272
71/71
132/156
101/173
743/1003
11/58
616/1123
17/39
28/135
0/0
26/83
40/194
700/864
8/5
20/30
0/0
3/9
1318/1865
47/227
1556/1939
25/127
26/120
50/256
141/560
481/816
117/130
214/434
1043/835
66/112
88/117
505/745
179/174
72/214
327/1149
131/291
148/166
839/1733
73/35
97/194
2/2
30/59
45/51
887/1577
25/13
41/59
2/2
9/1
285/513
196/489
42/38
405/286
1429/850
512/658
351/875
287/428
202/612
18/27
477/1228
179/637
84/151
684/713
223/116
93/156
929/817
112/152
155/260
688/813
169/123
32/105
340/1079
79/196
301/232
11/5
819/1280
453/679
214/352
723/604
238/920
15/26
483/476
133/126
44/82
964/1046
663/1046
147/332
1003/1240
290/356
172/546
273/913
137/453
141/202
1091/1614
336/158
8/6
704/727
48/116
437/1220
194/522
928/1586
273/258
417/301
426/178
78/38
40/60
1105/1538
189/106
158//215
176/406
112/209
156/147
1294/2124
195/142
280/209
209/202
1506/2066
1391/2138
145/166
1567/1896
99/171
125/179
79/202
1312/1786
68/330
1553/1881
40/199
50/191
69/325
1275/1173
32/156
55/257
41/176
500/1668
48/233
1412/1304
17/87
35/163
23/82
555/1863
34/165
18/8
8/3
4/16
254/256
2/7
200/313
16/118
6/38
24/115
252/235
8/37
211/284
12-2029
4-15
Table 4-5
Future Weekday Traffic Projections With and Without Site Traffic (Peak Season)
Roadway Segment Existing Year 2022 Year 2022+ Year 2035 Year 2035+ (2013) Ambient Initial Phase Ambient Project Buildout
Da Vall Drive
- North of Ramon Road 10,430 13,840 13,970 18,390 20,650 - South of Ramon Road 10,910 13,170 13,260 14,380 16,610 - North of Dinah Shore Drive 11,550 12,390 12,480 12,710 14,940 - South of Dinah Shore Drive 11,820 14,140 14,360 14,880 18,290 Rattler Road
- North of Ramon Road 2,710 7,350 7,360 8,260 8,390
Los Alamos Road
- South of Ramon Road 1,820 3,430 5,270 3,950 9,330
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 2,000 3,390 3,750 4,280 7,440 Bob Hope Drive
- North of I-10 Westbound Ramps 12,530 17,350 17,390 26,490 27,650 - North of I-10 Eastbound Ramps 17,370 24,570 25,130 29,160 40,200 - North of Ramon Road 18,750 25,770 26,580 24,550 40,520 - South of Ramon Road 19,130 22,820 23,180 21,040 37,660 - North of Dinah Shore Drive 17,860 24,640 25,000 24,430 38,900 - South of Dinah Shore Drive 20,340 23,880 24,600 22,370 30,760 - North of Gerald Ford Drive 19,120 22,010 22,730 21,030 29,420 - South of Gerald Ford Drive 20,090 22,100 22,820 22,100 27,890 Key Largo
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 0 5,010 5,010
- South of Dinah Shore Drive 1,340 1,390 1,390 1,470 1,470 Monterey Avenue
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 46,340 48,210 48,400 50,970 52,800 - South of Dinah Shore Drive 31,620 33,790 34,240 34,780 39,040 Ramon Road
- West of Da Vall Drive 20,340 27,030 28,020 30,670 39,350 - East of Da Vall Drive 23,760 34,000 35,030 42,060 55,100 - West of Los Alamos Road 24,030 34,230 35,260 41,940 55,100 - East of Los Alamos Road 24,680 33,610 34,420 37,660 50,070 - East of Bob Hope Drive 17,180 21,100 21,460 21,520 28,220 - East of Eastbound I-10 Ramp 11,230 12,830 12,920 13,760 15,510 Dinah Shore Drive
- West of Da Vall Drive 22,370 23,380 23,740 24,610 29,500 - East of Da Vall Drive 17,950 20,310 20,980 19,750 25,950 - West of Los Alamos Road 18,350 21,670 22,340 21,910 28,110 - East of Los Alamos Road 18,070 21,190 21,770 22,720 27,080 - East of Westin Mission Hills 18,680 21,400 23,370 22,260 27,080 - West of Bob Hope Drive 18,570 19,400 21,370 20,430 24,130 - East of Bob Hope Drive 18,800 23,200 24,100 23,350 31,870 - East of Key Largo 19,150 24,660 25,560 27,400 35,920
- West of Monterey Avenue 26,570 29,900 30,800 29,230 37,750 - East of Monterey Avenue 16,470 17,210 17,470 18,120 20,560 Gerald Ford Drive
- West of Bob Hope Drive 16,840 20,760 20,760 27,050 28,090 - East of Bob Hope Drive 14,900 19,310 19,310 26,410 27,970 Interstate 10
- West of Bob Hope Drive 100,000 136,818 137,258 198,456 207,176 - East of Ramon Road 102,000 141,527 142,107 207,633 218,693 12-2030
4-16
Table 4-5 (Continued)
Future Weekday Traffic Projections With and Without Site Traffic (Peak Season)
Roadway Segment Existing Year 2022 Year 2022+ Year 2035 Year 2035+ (2013) Ambient Initial Phase Ambient Project Buildout

Bob Hope Dr. I-10 Ramps
- Westbound On-Ramp 5,990 7,430 7,650 6,590 10,950
- Westbound Off-Ramp 8,600 11,260 11,550 10,870 16,400
- Eastbound On-Ramp 2,070 2,500 2,520 2,680 3,260
- Eastbound Off-Ramp 7,570 8,660 8,880 8,330 12,690
Ramon Road I-10 Ramps
- Eastbound On-Ramp 7,970 9,680 9,950 8,770 13,720
Via Bella
- West of Los Alamos Road 730 760 760 800 800
- East of Los Alamos Road 0 0 1,930 0 830
Casino
- West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 0 0 13,630
- East of Bob Hope Drive 2,050 2,130 2,130 2,260 2,780
Westin Mission Hills
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 2,550 0 1,320
- South of Dinah Shore Drive 1,580 1,640 1,640 1,740 1,740 Westin Resort and Villas
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 0 0 3,800
- South of Dinah Shore Drive 800 830 830 880 880
Street A
- East of Los Alamos Road 0 0 0 0 420
Street B
- East of Los Alamos Road 0 0 0 0 2,600
Street C
- South of Ramon Road 0 0 0 0 5,880
Street D
- South of Ramon Road 0 0 0 0 8,630
- West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 0 0 6,860
Street E
- West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 0 0 4,060
12-2031
4-17
Table 4-6
Year 2035 Weekday Traffic Projections By Alternative
(Peak Season)
Roadway Segment Ambient Proposed Rancho Riverside Project With (2035) Project Mirage GP County GP No Age Limit
Da Vall Drive
- North of Ramon Road 18,390 20,650 19,730 21,130 20,740 - South of Ramon Road 14,380 16,610 15,700 17,080 16,700 - North of Dinah Shore Drive 12,710 14,940 14,030 15,410 15,030 - South of Dinah Shore Drive 14,880 18,290 16,900 19,020 18,430 Rattler Road
- North of Ramon Road 8,260 8,390 8,340 8,420 8,400
Los Alamos Road
- South of Ramon Road 3,950 9,330 7,130 10,480 9,540
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 4,280 7,440 6,150 8,110 7,570 Bob Hope Drive
- North of I-10 WB Ramps 26,490 27,650 27,180 27,900 27,700 - North of I-10 EB Ramps 29,160 40,200 35,690 42,550 40,640 - North of Ramon Road 24,550 40,520 33,990 43,920 41,160 - South of Ramon Road 21,040 37,660 30,870 41,200 38,320 - North of Dinah Shore Drive 24,430 38,900 32,990 41,980 39,480 - South of Dinah Shore Drive 22,370 30,760 27,330 32,550 31,090 - North of Gerald Ford Drive 21,030 29,420 25,990 31,210 29,750 - South of Gerald Ford Drive 22,100 27,890 25,520 29,120 28,120 Key Largo
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 5,010 5,010 5,010 5,010 5,010 - South of Dinah Shore Drive 1,470 1,470 1,470 1,470 1,470 Monterey Avenue
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 50,970 52,800 52,050 53,190 52,870 - South of Dinah Shore Drive 34,780 39,040 37,300 39,950 39,210 Ramon Road
- West of Da Vall Drive 30,670 39,350 35,800 41,200 39,700 - East of Da Vall Drive 42,060 55,100 49,770 57,880 55,620 - West of Los Alamos Road 41,940 55,100 49,720 57,900 55,620 - East of Los Alamos Road 37,660 50,070 45,000 52,710 50,560 - East of Bob Hope Drive 21,520 28,220 25,480 29,650 28,490 - East of EB I-10 Ramp 13,760 15,510 14,790 15,880 15,580 Dinah Shore Drive
- West of Da Vall Drive 24,610 29,500 27,500 30,540 29,690 - East of Da Vall Drive 19,750 25,950 23,420 27,270 26,200 - West of Los Alamos Road 21,910 28,110 25,580 29,430 28,360 - East of Los Alamos Road 22,720 27,080 25,300 28,010 27,250 - East of Westin Mission Hills 22,260 27,080 25,110 28,110 27,270 - West of Bob Hope Drive 20,430 24,130 22,620 24,920 24,280 - East of Bob Hope Drive 23,350 31,870 28,390 33,680 32,210 - East of Key Largo 27,400 35,920 32,440 37,730 36,260
- West of Monterey Avenue 29,230 37,750 34,270 39,560 38,090 - East of Monterey Avenue 18,120 20,560 19,560 21,080 20,660 Gerald Ford Drive
- West of Bob Hope Drive 27,050 28,090 27,660 28,310 28,130 - East of Bob Hope Drive 26,410 27,970 27,330 28,300 28,030 Interstate 10
- West of Bob Hope Drive 198,456 207,176 203,616 209,036 207,526 - East of Ramon Road 207,633 218,693 214,173 221,043 219,133 12-2032
4-18
Table 4-6 (Continued)
Year 2035 Weekday Traffic Projections By Alternative
(Peak Season)
Roadway Segment Ambient Proposed Rancho Riverside Project With (2035) Project Mirage GP County GP No Age Limit
Bob Hope Dr. I-10 Ramps
- Westbound On-Ramp 6,590 10,950 9,170 11,880 11,120
- Westbound Off-Ramp 10,870 16,400 14,140 17,580 16,620 - Eastbound On-Ramp 2,680 3,260 3,020 3,380 3,280
- Eastbound Off-Ramp 8,330 12,690 10,910 13,620 12,860
Ramon Road I-10 Ramps
- Eastbound On-Ramp 8,770 13,720 11,700 14,770 13,920
Via Bella
- West of Los Alamos Road 800 800 800 800 800
- East of Los Alamos Road 0 830 490 1,010 860
Casino
- West of Bob Hope Drive 0 13,630 8,060 16,530 14,170
- East of Bob Hope Drive 2,260 2,780 2,570 2,890 2,800
Westin Mission Hills
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 1,320 780 1,600 1,370
- South of Dinah Shore Drive 1,740 1,740 1,740 1,740 1,740 Westin Resort and Villas
- North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 3,800 2,250 4,610 3,950
- South of Dinah Shore Drive 880 880 880 880 880
Street A
- East of Los Alamos Road 0 420 250 510 440
Street B
- East of Los Alamos Road 0 2,600 1,540 3,150 2,700
Street C
- South of Ramon Road 0 5,880 3,480 7,130 6,110
Street D
- South of Ramon Road 0 8,630 5,100 10,470 8,970
- West of Bob Hope Drive 0 6,860 4,060 8,320 7,130
Street E
- West of Bob Hope Drive 0 4,060 2,400 4,920 4,220
12-2033
5-1

5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The evaluation of the change in roadway operating conditions resulting from traffic generated by the Section 24 Specific Plan is presented below. The analysis addresses existing, near-term future and long-term future conditions with and without the initial phase and full development of the uses that would be permitted by the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan. These analyses were conducted to identify the transportation-related implications of the project and any improvements necessary to ensure acceptable traffic operating conditions in the future. Peak hour capacity and level of service analyses were performed for each of the unsignalized and signalized key intersections as well as the primary full-turn site access intersections. The future peak hour traffic operations at the site access connections proposed along the perimeter of the project site that would be restricted to right-in/right-out movements were not evaluated from a control delay and level of service perspective. Evaluation of these intersections was deemed unnecessary because these intersections would have few conflicting movements and operate with relatively little control delay in the future.

The Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) horizon year 2035 traffic projections were utilized to ensure that regional development throughout Southern California would be taken into account. RIVTAM was modified to incorporate socioeconomic (SED) data reflecting full development of the land uses that would be permitted by the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan. RIVTAM assigned trips from the project site taking into account both capacity constraint and travel time considerations. This approach was used to ensure that the recommendations in Section 6 would meet the mobility needs of the proposed development as well as those of other existing and future developments generating trips that will pass through the study area in the horizon year 2035.

Other factors considered in the traffic impact evaluation included: traffic safety, traffic control needs, transit needs, pedestrian and bicycle movements, emergency vehicle and service/delivery vehicle access, and the adequacy of both on-site and off- site reservoirs for vehicle queuing. Section 5.6 (Other Considerations) includes a discussion of several special issue topics considered relevant to the potential impacts of the proposed project on transportation within the study area. These topics include:
• Future improvements of Dinah Shore Drive and Los Alamos Road adjacent to the site; • Future improvements at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road; • Future conditions at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Varner Road; and • Future conditions on Interstate 10.

5.1 Thresholds of Significance
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) like the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth a policy of environmental protection and a protocol by which all agencies make environmental protection part of their decision-making process in their respective jurisdictions. NEPA applies only to projects receiving federal funding or approval by federal agencies, whereas CEQA applies only to projects receiving any form of state or local approval, permit, or oversight. CEQA makes environmental protection mandatory by requiring state and local agencies to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of proposed projects as well as adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts Under CEQA, every agency in the state of California is encouraged to develop and publish independent thresholds of significance supported by substantial evidence, against which to compare the environmental impacts of projects. A lead agency would normally consider the impacts of a project significant if, and only if, they would exceed the established thresholds. In the absence of significance thresholds developed by lead agencies, impact assessments apply the significance criteria detailed in the CEQA Guidelines: Appendix G “Environmental Checklist Form”. 1 Appendix G of CEQA Guidelines identify projects that would normally have a significant effect on transportation as those that would:
• Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections.
• Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

1 California Resources Agency. CEQA Guidelines: Appendix G “Environmental Checklist Form”. December 1, 2005. 12-2034
5-2
• Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
• Result in inadequate emergency access.
• Result in inadequate parking capacity.
• Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).

Lead agencies may defer to other local or regional agencies with published guidelines for the resources they regulate.

Under CEQA, if the lead agency determines that the project may have significant environmental impacts, the lead agency must prepare an environmental impact report (EIR).

The Riverside County Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide (April, 2008) states that the following types of traffic impacts are considered to be “significant” under CEQA:
• When existing traffic conditions exceed the General Plan target LOS. • When project traffic, when added to existing traffic, will deteriorate the LOS to below the target LOS, and impacts cannot be mitigated through project conditions of approval. • When cumulative traffic exceeds the target LOS and impacts cannot be mitigated through the TUMF network (or other funding mechanism), project conditions of approval, or other implementation mechanisms.

5.2 Local and Regional Performance Standards
Various agencies with jurisdiction over portions of the transportation system have adopted performance standards for use in determining the future infrastructure needed to accommodate projected travel demands. The agencies with jurisdiction over the transportation facilities within the study area include: (1) the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), (2) the Riverside County Transportation Commission (as the designated Congestion Management Agency for Riverside County), (3) the Riverside County Land Management Agency, (4) the City of Rancho Mirage, (6) the City of Cathedral City, and (7) the City of Palm Desert. Each of these agencies has adopted roadway performance standards.

Caltrans LOS Standard
Caltrans is responsible for monitoring freeway performance and developing plans and strategies to address any deficiencies on State Highways and other State-operated facilities. Caltrans is responsible for traffic operations on Interstate 10 and at the signalized intersections of the Interstate 10 freeway ramps on Bob Hope Drive and on Ramon Road. Caltrans also evaluates development projects of local and regional significance to determine if they will impact the State transportation system and work with lead agencies to develop potential mitigation measures.

Caltrans District 8 has jurisdiction over Interstate 10 and the traffic signal timing for ramps that provide access to Interstate

10. For freeway segments, Caltrans requires an operational analysis based on the methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000). For basic freeway segments, t he measure of effectiveness is density in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane. The truck mix is needed to expand the traffic volume on the freeway segment to passenger car equivalents (PCEs) and the performance standard throughout California is set at the transition between LOS C and LOS D.

However, the Interstate 10 Route Concept Fact Sheet (Caltrans, March 2000) which is currently being updated identified future right-of-way requirements and a design concept to accommodate buildout of the local general plans with a target of maintaining LOS “E” during the peak periods in the urbanized and urbanizing areas and LOS “C” in the rural areas. The rationale for maintaining these levels of service was “to achieve a reasonable balance between desired levels of mobility and forecasted traffic with consideration of development abutting rights of way and constrained financial transportation resources”.

CMP LOS Standard
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has jurisdiction over all intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways within Riverside County. The CMP System includes all State highways (Interstate 12-2035
5-3
10 and Highway 111) and the following Principal Arterials: Ramon Road (west of I-10), and Monterey Avenue (between I-10 and Highway 111). RCTC requires LOS analyses to be conducted using HCM-based methods.

The minimum level of service standard for intersections and roadway segments within the CMP System of Highways and Roadways is LOS E unless the intersection or segment had a lower level of service or LOS F in 1991 when the baseline CMP data was collected. Such facilities are exempt from CMP deficiency plan requirements. However, if the level of service is improved to LOS E or better after 1991, the LOS must then be maintained. Intersections or street segments that have dropped to LOS F since 1991 would be subject to the development of a deficiency plan prepared by the local agency where the deficiency is located, following coordination with other agencies identified as contributors to the deficiency. The deficiency plan must contain mitigation measures (including TDM strategies and transit alternatives) and a schedule for mitigating the deficiency. The Riverside County Transportation Commission prepares deficiency plans for the State Highway System when deficiencies are identified by local jurisdictions.

County of Riverside Target LOS
“The existing Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan establishes Level of Service C as a target for all county maintained roadways and conventional State highways, except that LOS D could be allowed in urban areas at intersections of any combination of Major Streets, Arterials, Expressways, or conventional State highways within one mile of a freeway interchange, and also at freeway ramp intersections. Current policy requires development projects to mitigate impacts on roadways based on the LOS C standard. Current General Plan policy also permits allowing development projects to mitigate to LOS D, subject to Board of Supervisors approval, in those instances where mitigation to LOS C is deemed to be impractical.”2 The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan states that LOS D may be allowed in Community Development areas at intersections of any combination of secondary highways, major highways, arterials, urban arterials, expressways, conventional state highways or freeway ramp intersections. LOS E may be allowed in designated community centers, to the extent that it would support transit-oriented development and walkable communities.

Riverside County policy also permits applying city standards to development within the Sphere of Influence of an incorporated jurisdiction where annexation to the city will logically occur in the short to intermediate range future. Riverside County considered the impact of the R
iverside County Comprehensive General Plan to be significant if it would decrease the LOS on a freeway segment below LOS E. The key intersections located within unincorporated Riverside County are also within the City of Rancho Mirage Sphere of Influence. The methodology provided in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) is required by Riverside County for the intersection analysis.

City of Rancho Mirage LOS Policy
The Circulation Element includes as a policy, the provision and maintenance of Level of Service D operation for the Rancho Mirage circulation network, based upon peak hour intersection operation. The City of Rancho Mirage requires individual development projects to analyze the LOS at individual intersections to ensure that development projects do not create bottlenecks at the intersections of the roadway system whose roadway widths and rights-of-way were previously examined in the year 2005 in conjunction with the Rancho Mirage General Plan update process. Rancho Mirage experiences significant seasonal fluctuations in traffic demand with the peak traffic flows occurring in the winter months.

Cathedral City LOS Standard
For planning and design purposes, Cathedral City has also established Level of Service "D" as minimum peak hour system performance standard for traffic volumes on the roadway system. Cathedral City experiences seasonal variations in traffic volumes associated with tourism and part-year residents. The Cathedral City General Plan addresses peak season traffic conditions.

City of Palm Desert Target LOS
The Circulation Element of the City of Palm Desert General Plan states that peak hour intersection operation at LOS “C” or better is generally acceptable. However, as traffic volumes in the City increase, LOS “C” represents a standard that is progressively more difficult and costly to achieve in urban areas. For peak operating periods, LOS “D” and/or a maximum

2 RCIP Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan Environmental Impact Report . pp 4.16-11. 12-2036
5-4
volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 is provisionally considered the generally acceptable service level. The City of Palm Desert LOS “C” goal should only be exceeded where maximum feasible intersection improvements have been implemented.

5.3 Capacity and Level of Service Analysis
Roadway Capacity
A given lane or roadway may provide a wide range of service levels, depending upon traffic volumes and speeds. Roadway capacity has been defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a given roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. The capacity of a roadway that is used for design purposes (which is generally set at either the upper limit of LOS C or LOS D) is the level at which the facility is handling the maximum traffic volume that it can accommodate while maintaining an acceptable level of driver satisfaction.

The maximum capacity of a roadway is generally defined at the upper limit of LOS E and reflects the maximum traffic volume that a roadway can theoretically handle. The maximum capacity is determined from roadway factors (such as lane widths, lateral clearance, shoulders, surface conditions, alignment and grades) as well as traffic factors (such as vehicle composition i.e. truck and bus mixture, distribution by lane, peaking characteristics, traffic control devices, intersections, etc.).

Street geometric design features that may be less than ideal and adversely affect operating conditions include: narrow lanes and/or shoulders, street grades, constrained design speeds (sharp horizontal and vertical curves), excessive or poorly spaced intersections, private driveways for adjacent development, and a lack of turn lanes. The Highway Capacity Manual can be used to identify these features and determine the traffic volumes that can be served by streets with less than ideal design features.

Level of Service Criteria
Levels of service (LOS) are commonly used to describe how well a transportation facility operates from the traveler’s perspective. Levels of service use a familiar scale ranging from LOS A (best) to LOS F (worst). Levels of service can be used to describe the performance of a highway segment or intersection with LOS A used to characterize essentially free flow operation and LOS F used to reflect substantial congestion, long delays and stop-and-go operation. LOS has been widely adopted as a standard or criterion on which decisions are based regarding the approval of land development, upgrading traffic control systems, and allocating costs for mitigating traffic impacts.

A change in average control delay from 35 to 55 seconds per vehicle (i.e., LOS C to LOS D) i ndicates that the roadway performance has transitioned from one range to another and that change would be perceived by drivers. No change in LOS indicates that the average delay may have increased, but the change would not be perceived by drivers.

Levels of service are defined by one or more measures of effectiveness such as: speed and travel time, traffic volume, geometric features, traffic interruptions, delays, the ability to move freely, driver comfort and convenience, and vehicle operating costs. For peak hour traffic operations at intersections, the six levels of service are based on relative levels of driver acceptability of delay. Since drivers are willing to accept more delay at signalized than unsignalized intersections, separate ranges of delay have been identified for LOS based on the intersection control type, as shown in Table 5-1.

The preferred method of gauging congestion is to evaluate intersection operations during the peak hours, since the approach lane configuration at intersections represents the limiting factor in the capacity of the transportation system. A peak hour intersection analysis requires more data but can more clearly define the circulation system performance characteristics. Once these characteristics are known, the intersection approach lanes and traffic control required to accommodate the travel demands and meet the applicable intersection performance standards can be determined.

Methodology Overview
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provides the best available techniques for determining capacity, delay, and levels of service for transportation facilities. 3 A brief discussion of the Highway Capacity Manual operational methodologies for signalized and unsignalized intersections is provided in Appendix 3. The relationship between peak hour intersection control delay and levels of service is shown in Table 5-1.

3 Highway Capacity Manual; Fourth Edition; TRB Report 209; Transportation Research Board, National Research Council; Washington, D.C.; 2000. 12-2037
5-5
Table 5-1
Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service
Average Control Delay
(Seconds/Vehicle) Traffic Flow Characteristics
(LOS) Signalized Unsignalized
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 Good progression, few stops, and short cycle lengths. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and many do not stop. Little or no delay at unsignalized intersections.

B > 10 and ≤ 20 > 10 and ≤ 15 Good progression, short cycle lengths or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Short traffic delays at unsignalized intersections.

C > 20 and ≤ 35 > 15 and ≤ 25 Satisfactory operation with fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles and overflow occurs. A significant number of vehicles stop but many pass through without stopping. Average traffic delays at unsignalized intersections.

D > 35 and ≤ 55 > 25 and ≤ 35 Tolerable delay, where congestion becomes more noticeable and many vehicles stop. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Long traffic delays at unsignalized intersections.

E > 55 and ≤ 80 > 35 and ≤ 50 Unstable flow with poor progression, frequent cycle failures, long cycle lengths and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures and long queues are frequent occurrences.

This is considered the limit of acceptable delay by many agencies. Very long traffic delays at unsignalized intersections.

F > 80 > 50 Considered unacceptable to most drivers. Arrival flow rates exceed the discharge capacity of intersection with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths as well as high V/C ratios and high delay. Unacceptable traffic delays at unsignalized intersections.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Fourth Edition, 2000; pp. 10-16.

The Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) package is a direct computerized implementation of the HCM 2000 procedures. It is prepared under FHWA sponsorship and maintained by the McTrans Center at the University of Florida Transportation Research Center. The most recent version of HCS+ (Version 5.3) was employed to assess the key intersections in the project vicinity. The computerized HCS+ worksheets are included in Appendix 3.

An eight percent truck mix was assumed for the peak hour operational analysis of existing and year 2022 conditions. A five percent truck mix was assumed for the future year 2035 operational analyses. The peak hour factors determined from the peak hour traffic counts at the existing key intersections were assumed for the existing and year 2022 operational analyses.

The horizon year 2035 analysis assumed a peak hour factor of 1.0. The existing approach lane geometrics at the key intersections are shown in Figure 6-1. Figure 6-2 illustrates the minimum lane geometrics required for the initial phase of the proposed development. Figure 6-3 illustrates the minimum required approach lane geometrics and traffic control assumed for existing plus project buildout conditions. Figure 6-4 illustrates the minimum required approach lane geometrics and traffic control assumed for conditions in the horizon year 2035. The approach lanes therein represent: (1) existing lanes; (2) lanes required to eliminate off-site intersection deficiencies; and (3) future lanes recommended to ensure adequate site access. Ultimately, the circulation system within the study area may have additional lanes beyond those shown in Figure 6-4.
12-2038
5-6
Performance Standard Addressed
No scientific method exists for deciding the maximum degree of congestion that might be accepted as a basis for design.

The level of congestion considered acceptable for a street or intersection will vary from one agency to another and from one community to another. The expectations of people using a street will also vary by facility type, day of the week, and time of the day. The degree of congestion that the public is willing to accept as reasonable remains a local decision.

For conditions to be tolerable, the traffic demand must not exceed the capacity of a street or highway to prevent complete stoppages or stop-and-go driving conditions. This design principle is reflected in the Congestion Management Program performance standard of LOS E. The attitude of motorists toward adverse operating conditions is influenced by their awareness of the construction and right-of-way costs necessary to provide better service. This design principle is reflected in the willingness of the City of Palm Desert to accept LOS D provisionally, in densely developed areas where facilities have been fully improved and high land values would make achieving LOS C extremely costly.

Adopting a higher level of service performance standard may be reasonable in rural areas where travel demands are relatively stable throughout the year and traffic densities and traffic congestion are relatively low. The cost of correcting deficiencies is lower in rural areas where the adjacent land is less densely developed and land values are low compared to urban and suburban areas.

The seasonal variation in travel demand within the study area is much greater than it is within Riverside County as a whole.

Adopting LOS D as the minimum performance standard during the peak hours in the peak season in areas where the seasonal population is nearly equal to the number of permanent residents would result in LOS C conditions when seasonal visitors are not present. That means during more than half of the year, LOS C or better conditions would be expected during the peak hours. While all jurisdictions should strive to provide the highest level of service that is feasible, in heavily developed areas, conditions may necessitate the use of LOS D for arterials. AASHTO suggests that “For some urban and suburban highways, conditions may necessitate the use of level of service D.” 4 All of the key intersections that have corners located within unincorporated Riverside C ounty are also within the Sphere of Influence of Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan states that for development within the Sphere of Influence of an incorporated jurisdiction, city standards should generally apply where annexation to the city will logically occur in the short to intermediate range future. Level of Service "D" was utilized as the target intersection service level during peak hours in the peak season. This performance standard is utilized by the City of Rancho Mirage and City of Cathedral City.

Two of the key intersections are under the jurisdiction of both the City of Rancho Mirage and the City of Palm Desert.

Although Palm Desert has identified LOS C as a target, for peak operating periods, LOS “D” and/or a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 is provisionally acceptable where maximum feasible intersection improvements have been implemented. Maximum feasible intersection improvements have been implemented at the intersection of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection16]. Therefore, LOS D was assumed as the target LOS for this intersection. The intersection of Key Largo Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection15] is not fully improved, but not expected to exceed LOS C in the future.

Operational Analysis
Existing Conditions (Year 2013 - Peak Season)
The evaluation of peak hour traffic operations at the seventeen key intersections in terms of control delay and levels of service (LOS) is summarized in Tables 5-2 and 5-3. All of the key intersections currently provide LOS C or better operation during the peak season with the existing traffic volumes, intersection approach lane configurations, and traffic control.

As shown in Table 5-2, the unsignalized intersection of Los Alamos Road with Via Bella [Intersection 8] is providing a very high level of service (LOS A) during the peak hours for all movements. The unsignalized northbound approach at the intersection of the Westin Resort Villas access with Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13] currently operates at LOS B during the morning peak hour and LOS C during the evening peak hour. The northbound volumes at this intersection are substantially below the minimum peak hour traffic signal warrant and are not expected to warrant signalization in the future.

4 AASHTO Ibid. pp.87.
12-2039
5-7
Table 5-2
Existing Weekday Peak Hour Delay and Levels of Servicea At the Unsignalized Key Intersections With and Without the Initial Phase of the Project Existing Without Project Existing Plus Initial Phase Change In Unsignalized Intersection
[Intersection Number]
Major Street
Left Turnb
Minor-Street
Approachc
Major Street
Left Turnb
Minor-Street
Approachc
Minor-Street
Approach
Delay/LOS Move Delay/LOS Delay/LOS Move Delay/LOS Delay LOS LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ VIA BELLA [INTERSECTION 8]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.77] 7.5/A EB 9.4/A 7.5/A EB 10.3/B 0.9 A-B - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.88] 7.4/A EB 9.0/A 7.5/A EB 10.0/B 1.0 A-B WESTIN RESORT VILLAS @ DINAH SHORE DR. [INT. 13]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.82] 9.5/A NB 12.3/B 9.8/A NB 13.0/B 0.7 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 10.2/B NB 18.0/C 10.5/B NB 19.9/C 1.9 No a. Appendix 3 includes the HCS worksheets. The values shown assume an eight percent truck mix and the intersection geometrics shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2. NA=Not Applicable. The change in delay and LOS associated with site traffic is not directly comparable if an intersection is unsignalized without the proposed project but signalized with the project. b. Delay=average control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the left-turn move from the major street onto the minor street. LOS was determined from the delay (0-10 sec./veh. = LOS A; 10-15 sec./veh. = LOS B; 15-25 sec./veh. = LOS C; 25-35 sec./veh. = LOS D; 35-50 sec./veh. = LOS E; 50+ sec./veh. = LOS F) per HCM 2000 page 17-2 and 17-32. c. EB= Eastbound. NB=Northbound. Delay=average approach control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the minor-street approach that exhibits the most delay at this intersection. LOS was determined per the HCM 2000 (page 17-2 and 17-32).
12-2040
5-8
Table 5-3
Existing Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS
At the Signalized Key Intersections With and Without Initial Phase of Projecta Signalized Intersection Existing Without Project Existing Plus Initial Phase Change In [Intersection Number] Delay Critical LOS Delay Critical LOS Delay LOS (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.)
BOB HOPE DR. @ WESTBOUND I-10 RAMPS [Intersection 1]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.87] 15.2 0.32 B 15.3 0.33 B 0.1 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 19.0 0.41 B 19.4 0.42 B 0.4 No BOB HOPE DR. @ EASTBOUND I-10 RAMPS [Intersection 2]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.87] 10.0 0.38 A 9.9 0.39 A -0.1 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.97] 9.1 0.27 A 8.9 0.28 A -0.2 No DA VALL DRIVE @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 3]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.96] 28.7 0.63 C 28.7 0.63 C 0.0 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.90] 24.8 0.52 C 25.0 0.54 C 0.2 No RATTLER ROAD @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 4]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 8.8 0.29 A 8.7 0.30 A -0.1 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 7.3 0.34 A 7.2 0.35 A -0.1 No LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 5]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.83] 5.0 0.32 A 6.2 0.36 A 1.2 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.93] 4.2 0.27 A 5.3 0.31 A 1.1 No BOB HOPE DRIVE @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 6]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 20.6 0.56 C 20.7 0.57 C 0.1 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.97] 21.2 0.52 C 21.2 0.52 C 0.0 No EASTBOUND I-10 RAMPS @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 7]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.88] 3.6 0.48 A 3.6 0.49 A 0.0 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 5.2 0.49 A 5.2 0.50 A 0.0 No BOB HOPE DRIVE @ CASINO [Intersection 9]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.83] 4.7 0.37 A 4.7 0.37 A 0.0 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.87] 7.0 0.32 A 7.0 0.32 A 0.0 No a. Delay = Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Assumes intersection geometrics shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 and an eight percent truck mix. Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operation methodology implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ Version 5.3). LOS is the intersection level of service. LOS was determined from the delay (≤10 sec./veh.=LOS A; >10 and ≤20 sec./veh.=LOS B; >20 and ≤35 sec./veh.=LOS C; >35 and ≤55 sec./veh.=LOS D; >55 and ≤80 sec./veh.=LOS E; >80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per 2000 HCM page 10-16.

See Appendix 3 for the signalized intersection HCS worksheets. 12-2041
5-9
Table 5-3 (Continued)
Existing Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS
At the Signalized Key Intersections With and Without Initial Phase of Projecta Signalized Intersection Existing Without Project Existing Plus Initial Phase Change In [Intersection Number] Delay Critical LOS Delay Critical LOS Delay LOS (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.)
DA VALL DRIVE @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 10]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.83] 27.5 0.64 C 27.8 0.64 C 0.3 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.88] 27.5 0.69 C 27.5 0.69 C 0.0 No LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 11]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.78] 5.7 0.30 A 5.9 0.31 A 0.2 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.85] 5.2 0.43 A 5.5 0.44 A 0.3 No WESTIN MISSION HILLS @ DINAH SHORE DR. [Int. 12]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.90] 5.9 0.29 A 11.0 0.36 B 5.1 A-B - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 6.9 0.41 A 8.6 0.47 A 1.7 No Bob Hope Drive @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 14]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.84] 25.9 0.56 C 26.1 0.58 C 0.2 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.89] 25.7 0.61 C 26.3 0.64 C 0.6 No KEY LARGO AVE. @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 15]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 5.1 0.20 A 5.1 0.21 A 0.0 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.92] 5.2 0.26 A 5.2 0.26 A 0.0 No MONTEREY AVE. @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 16]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 21.8 0.66 C 22.1 0.67 C 0.3 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.95] 30.0 0.82 C 30.6 0.82 C 0.6 No BOB HOPE DRIVE @ GERALD FORD DRIVE [Intersection 17]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.85] 31.3 0.73 C 31.6 0.74 C 0.3 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.96] 29.2 0.66 C 29.3 0.67 C 0.1 No a. Delay = Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Assumes intersection geometrics shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 and an eight percent truck mix. Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operation methodology implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ Version 5.3). LOS is the intersection level of service. LOS was determined from the delay (≤10 sec./veh.=LOS A; >10 and ≤20 sec./veh.=LOS B; >20 and ≤35 sec./veh.=LOS C; >35 and ≤55 sec./veh.=LOS D; >55 and ≤80 sec./veh.=LOS E; >80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per 2000 HCM page 10-16.

See Appendix 3 for the signalized intersection HCS worksheets. 12-2042
5-10
Existing Plus Project (Initial Phase) Conditions
All of the key intersections evaluated will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours upon completion of the initial phase of the proposed development. The traffic generated by the active adult community will change the peak hour level of service at two of the intersections evaluated. Both of these intersections would provide direct access to the active adult community proposed within Planning Area 8.

The addition of the traffic associated with the initial phase of the proposed project to existing traffic volumes would result in an increase in the average control delay during the peak hours of up to one second per vehicle traveling eastbound on Via Bella at Los Alamos Road [Intersection 8]. As shown in Table 5-2, the project-related increase in average control delay experienced by these motorists during the peak hours is expected to change the level of service on this approach from LOS A to LOS B. This increase in delay would most likely not be perceived by motorists, since the eastbound approach would continue to operate at LOS B, which is considered an acceptable level of service associated with relatively low levels of delay. Most of the vehicles passing through this intersection would be traveling northbound or southbound on Los Alamos Road, which is projected to operate with an average of 7.5 seconds per vehicle of control delay. This level of control delay is indicative of LOS A operation. Many motorists on Los Alamos Road will pass through the intersection at Via Bella during the peak hours with no control delay.

As shown in Table 5-3, the increase in the average control delay of 5.1 seconds per vehicle associated with the proposed site access connection opposite the existing signalized intersection of the Westin Mission Hills Access and Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12] would cause the morning peak hour level of service to drop from LOS A to LOS B. No change in the level of service at this intersection during the evening peak hour is projected to occur when the active adult community is developed.

Existing Plus Project Buildout Conditions
As shown in Table 5-4, the addition of the site traffic associated with buildout of the proposed project to existing traffic volumes would result in a potential operational deficiency at one intersection [Intersection 13]. That deficiency would be avoided through the installation of traffic control signals in conjunction with the implementation of the proposed Section 24 S
pecific Plan. A traffic control signal would be installed in conjunction with the site access connection proposed opposite the existing Westin Resort Villas access on Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13] and activated when warranted by site traffic volumes. With traffic signal control, this intersection would operate at LOS A during the morning peak hour and maintain LOS C operation during the evening peak hour.

The addition of site traffic associated with buildout of the proposed project to existing traffic volumes would result in a drop in the morning peak hour LOS at two intersections where site access connections are proposed. The eastbound approach at the unsignalized intersection of Los Alamos Road and Via Bella would experience a drop from LOS A to LOS B when site traffic is added.

As shown in Table 5-5, the addition of site traffic to existing traffic volumes at the signalized intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Casino [Intersection 9] would cause an increase in the average intersection delay of 17.6 seconds per vehicle during the morning peak hour. An increase in average control delay of this magnitude would be noticeable to motorists and decrease the level of service provided by this intersection from LOS A to LOS C.

The addition of site buildout traffic to the existing traffic volumes at the signalized key intersections would cause a drop in the evening peak hour levels of service at eight of the key intersections. The level of service is projected to drop from LOS A to LOS B at three of the key intersections including: Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road, the Eastbound I-10 Ramps at Ramon Road, and Los Alamos Road at Dinah Shore Drive. The level of service is projected to drop from LOS B to LOS C at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive with the Westbound Interstate 10 Ramps.

The level of service is projected to drop from LOS C to LOS D at three intersections including: Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road, Monterey Avenue at Dinah Shore Drive, and Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive. The level of service is projected to drop from LOS A to LOS D at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Casino. Provided intersection 13 is signalized when warranted in conjunction with the implementation of the Section 24 Specific Plan, all of the key intersections would provide a
cceptable levels of service with existing plus project buildout traffic volumes and the site access improvements proposed at intersections 8, 9 and 13.
12-2043
5-11
Table 5-4
Existing Weekday Peak Hour Delay and Levels of Servicea At the Unsignalized Key Intersections With and Without Project Buildout Existing Without Project Existing Plus Project Buildout Change In Unsignalized Intersection
[Intersection Number]
Major Street
Left Turnb
Minor-Street
Approachc
Major Street
Left Turnb
Minor-Street
Approachc
Minor-Street
Approach
Delay/LOS Move Delay/LOS Delay/LOS Move Delay/LOS Delay LOS LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ VIA BELLA [INTERSECTION 8]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.77] 7.5/A EB 9.4/A 7.6/A EB 10.3/B 0.9 A-B - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.88] 7.4/A EB 9.0/A 7.8/A EB 11.5/B 2.5 A-B WESTIN RESORT VILLAS @ DINAH SHORE DR. [INT. 13] (Signal warrants met. See Table 5-5.) - Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.82] 9.5/A NB 12.3/B NA NA NA NA NA - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.88] 10.2/B NB 18.0/C NA NA NA NA NA a. Appendix 3 includes the HCS worksheets. The values shown assume an eight percent truck mix and the intersection geometrics and traffic control shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-3. NA=Not Applicable.

The change in delay and LOS associated with site traffic is not directly comparable if an intersection is unsignalized without the proposed project but signalized with the project. b. Delay=average control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the left-turn move from the major street onto the minor street. LOS was determined from the delay (0-10 sec./veh. = LOS A; 10-15 sec./veh. = LOS B; 15-25 sec./veh. = LOS C; 25-35 sec./veh. = LOS D; 35-50 sec./veh. = LOS E; 50+ sec./veh. = LOS F) per HCM 2000 page 17-2 and 17-32. c. EB= Eastbound. NB=Northbound. Delay=average approach control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the minor-street approach that exhibits the most delay at this intersection. LOS was determined per the HCM 2000 (page 17-2 and 17-32).
12-2044
5-12
Table 5-5
Existing Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS
At the Signalized Key Intersections With and Without Project Buildouta Signalized Intersection Existing Without Project Existing Plus Project Buildout Change In [Intersection Number] Delay Critical LOS Delay Critical LOS Delay LOS (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.)
BOB HOPE DR. @ WESTBOUND I-10 RAMPS [Intersection 1]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 15.2 0.32 B 17.6 0.40 B 2.4 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 19.0 0.41 B 28.1 0.80 C 9.1 B-C BOB HOPE DR. @ EASTBOUND I-10 RAMPS [Intersection 2]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.87] 10.0 0.38 A 9.1 0.46 A -0.9 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.97] 9.1 0.27 A 5.8 0.47 A -3.3 No DA VALL DRIVE @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 3]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.96] 28.7 0.63 C 29.2 0.67 C 0.5 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.90] 24.8 0.52 C 35.2 0.87 D 10.4 C-D RATTLER ROAD @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 4]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 8.8 0.29 A 8.2 0.33 A -0.6 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 7.3 0.34 A 6.6 0.52 A -0.7 No LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 5]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.83] 5.0 0.32 A 7.1 0.43 A 2.1 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.93] 4.2 0.27 A 10.6 0.58 B 6.4 A-B BOB HOPE DRIVE @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 6]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 20.6 0.56 C 21.4 0.65 C 0.8 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.97] 21.2 0.52 C 29.7 0.87 C 8.5 No EASTBOUND I-10 RAMPS @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 7]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.88] 3.6 0.48 A 3.8 0.57 A 0.2 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 5.2 0.49 A 11.0 0.88 B 5.8 A-B BOB HOPE DRIVE @ CASINO [Intersection 9]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.83] 4.7 0.37 A 22.3 0.68 C 17.6 A-C - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.87] 7.5 0.43 A 50.1 0.92 D 42.6 A-D a. Delay = Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Assumes intersection geometrics shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-3 and a five percent truck mix. Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operation methodology implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ Version 5.3). LOS is the intersection level of service. LOS was determined from the delay (≤10 sec./veh.=LOS A; >10 and ≤20 sec./veh.=LOS B; >20 and ≤35 sec./veh.=LOS C; >35 and ≤55 sec./veh.=LOS D; >55 and ≤80 sec./veh.=LOS E; >80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per 2000 HCM page 10-16. See Appendix 3 for the signalized intersection HCS worksheets.
12-2045
5-13
Table 5-5 (Continued)
Existing Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS
At the Signalized Key Intersections With and Without Project Buildouta Signalized Intersection Existing Without Project Existing Plus Project Buildout Change In [Intersection Number] Delay Critical LOS Delay Critical LOS Delay LOS (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.)
DA VALL DRIVE @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 10]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.83] 27.5 0.64 C 28.9 0.68 C 1.4 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.88] 27.5 0.69 C 34.2 0.70 C 6.7 No LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 11]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.78] 5.7 0.30 A 6.9 0.36 A 1.2 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.85] 5.2 0.43 A 10.0 0.64 B 4.8 A-B WESTIN MISSION HILLS @ DINAH SHORE DR. [Int. 12]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.90] 5.9 0.29 A 7.1 0.34 A 1.2 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 6.9 0.41 A 7.9 0.52 A 1.0 No WESTIN RESORT VILLAS @ DINAH SHORE DR. [Int.13] (Unsignalized. See Table 5-2.) - Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.82] NA NA NA 7.1 0.33 A NA NA - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] NA NA NA 20.3 0.76 C NA NA Bob Hope Drive @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 14]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.84] 25.9 0.56 C 26.4 0.64 C 0.5 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.89] 25.7 0.61 C 31.8 0.84 C 6.1 No KEY LARGO AVE. @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 15]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 5.1 0.20 A 4.9 0.23 A -0.2 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.92] 5.2 0.26 A 5.7 0.37 A 0.5 No MONTEREY AVE. @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 16]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 21.8 0.66 C 23.3 0.71 C 1.5 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.95] 30.0 0.82 C 41.9 0.93 D 11.9 C-D BOB HOPE DRIVE @ GERALD FORD DRIVE [Intersection 17]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.85] 31.3 0.73 C 33.3 0.79 C 2.0 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.96] 29.2 0.66 C 36.1 0.85 D 6.9 C-D a. Delay = Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Assumes intersection geometrics shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-3 and a five percent truck mix. Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operation methodology implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ Version 5.3). LOS is the intersection level of service. LOS was determined from the delay (≤10 sec./veh.=LOS A; >10 and ≤20 sec./veh.=LOS B; >20 and ≤35 sec./veh.=LOS C; >35 and ≤55 sec./veh.=LOS D; >55 and ≤80 sec./veh.=LOS E; >80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per 2000 HCM page 10-16.

See Appendix 3 for the signalized intersection HCS worksheets. NA=Not Applicable. The change in delay and LOS associated with site traffic is not directly comparable when an intersection is unsignalized without the proposed project but signalized and improved with the project. 12-2046
5-14
Future Year 2022 Conditions (No Site Traffic)
Table 5-6 summarizes the future traffic operations at the two unsignalized key intersections in the year 2022, prior to the addition of the trips that would be generated by the initial phase of the proposed project. Table 5-7 provides the overall intersection delay and corresponding levels of service during the peak hours for the fifteen signalized key intersections without project traffic. All of the key intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels or service (LOS D or better) in the year 2022 with cumulative traffic and the projected growth in background traffic, prior to the addition of site traffic.

Motorists traveling on the minor-street approaches at the two unsignalized key intersections are projected to experience LOS C or better operation with short to average traffic delays while waiting to turn onto the major streets during the peak hours in the peak season. Motorists turning left from Los Alamos Road onto Via Bella will experience an average delay of

7.5 to 7.7 seconds per vehicle (LOS A) during the peak hours. On average, motorists turning left from Dinah Shore Drive into the unsignalized Westin Resort Villas access [Intersection 13] are projected to experience a delay of 9.6 seconds per vehicle during the morning peak hour (LOS A) and 10.4 seconds per vehicle during the evening peak hour (LOS B). Based upon applicable local performance standards, these levels of service are considered acceptable.

Thirteen of the fifteen signalized key intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the peak hours in the year 2022, prior to the addition of site traffic. Two of the signalized key intersections are projected to operate at LOS D during the morning peak hour and LOS C during the evening peak hour in the year 2022 without site traffic. These two intersections are: Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 3] and Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive [Intersection 17].

Peak hour operation at LOS D or better is considered acceptable and consistent with the performance standards utilized by the City of Rancho Mirage and City of Cathedral City (the municipalities with jurisdiction over these intersections).

Future Year 2022 Plus Project (Initial Phase) Conditions As shown in Table 5-6, the addition of the site traffic associated with the initial phase of the proposed project to future year 2022 plus cumulative traffic volumes would cause the peak hour level of service on the minor-street approach at one existing unsignalized key intersection to drop from LOS A to LOS B . The construction of the proposed site access on Los Alamos Road, opposite Via Bella, is projected to increase the average control delay experienced by eastbound motorists on Via Bella by up to 1.1 seconds per vehicle during the peak hours. These motorists are controlled by a stop sign on Via Bella that will remain after the project is built. The increase in delay when site traffic is added would cause the level of service for motorists on the minor-street approach (eastbound Via Bella) during the evening peak hour to drop from LOS A to LOS B.

The level of delay associated with LOS B is characterized by drivers as short (see Table 5-1). This intersection would continue to provide acceptable levels of service following the addition of site traffic in the year 2022.

The projected increases in the overall average control delay at the fifteen signalized key intersections that would result when the trips generated by the initial phase of the proposed development are added are shown in Table 5-7. The overall average intersection control delay at these intersections would increase by up to 4.6 seconds per vehicle during the morning peak hour at the main access to the initial development phase in Planning Area 8. This increase would be sufficient to change the level of service at this signalized intersection [Intersection 12], from LOS A to LOS B. None of the other project-related increases in overall intersection control delay would be sufficient to change the intersection LOS at the signalized key intersections evaluated.

Future Horizon Year 2035 Conditions
A horizon year 2035 analysis was performed to determine if the applicable long-term regional and local Circulation Plans for the study area would be adequate to accommodate project traffic at acceptable levels of service or if additional mitigation would necessary. The RIVTAM traffic model projections based on model assumptions including buildout of the project site formed the basis for determining turning movement volumes for the required intersection analysis. Future horizon year 2035 conditions with no site traffic need not be evaluated to determine if the ultimate circulation system within the study area would be adequate. However, as an indicator of the relative impact of the proposed project at the key intersections, horizon year 2035 conditions with no site traffic have been evaluated and are summarized in Tables 5-8 and 5-9. 12-2047
5-15
Table 5-6
Year 2022 Weekday Peak Hour Delay and Levels of Servicea At the Unsignalized Key Intersections With and Without the Initial Phase of the Project Year 2022 Without Project Year 2022 Plus Initial Phase Change In Unsignalized Intersection
[Intersection Number]
Major Street
Left Turnb
Minor Street
Approachc
Major Street
Left Turnb
Minor-Street
Approachc
Minor-Street
Approach
Delay/LOS Move Delay/LOS Delay/LOS Move Delay/LOS Delay LOS LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ VIA BELLA [INTERSECTION 8]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.77] 7.7/A EB 10.3/B 7.7/A EB 11.3/B 1.0 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.88] 7.5/A EB 9.5/A 7.7/A EB 10.6/B 1.1 A-B WESTIN RESORT VILLAS @ DINAH SHORE DR. [INT. 13]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.82] 9.6/A NB 12.5/B 10.0/A NB 13.2/B 0.7 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.88] 10.4/B NB 19.8/C 10.7/B NB 22.1/C 2.3 No a. Appendix 3 includes the HCS worksheets. The values shown assume an eight percent truck mix and the intersection geometrics shown in Figure 6-2. NA=Not Applicable. The change in delay and LOS associated with site traffic is not directly comparable if an intersection is unsignalized without the proposed project but signalized with the project. b. Delay=average control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the left-turn move from the major street onto the minor street. LOS was determined from the delay (0-10 sec./veh. = LOS A; 10-15 sec./veh. = LOS B; 15-25 sec./veh. = LOS C; 25-35 sec./veh. = LOS D; 35-50 sec./veh. = LOS E; 50+ sec./veh. = LOS F) per HCM 2000 page 17-2 and 17-32. c. EB= Eastbound. NB=Northbound. Delay=average approach control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the minor-street approach that exhibits the most delay at this intersection. LOS was determined per the HCM 2000 (page 17-2 and 17-32).
12-2048
5-16
Table 5-7
Year 2022 Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS
At the Signalized Key Intersections With and Without Initial Phase of Projecta Signalized Intersection Year 2022 Without Project Year 2022 With Initial Phase Change In [Intersection Number] Delay Critical LOS Delay Critical LOS Delay LOS (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.)
BOB HOPE DR. @ WESTBOUND I-10 RAMPS [Intersection 1]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 16.1 0.45 B 16.6 0.45 B 0.5 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 20.5 0.56 C 20.7 0.57 C 0.2 No BOB HOPE DR. @ EASTBOUND I-10 RAMPS [Intersection 2]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.87] 10.5 0.48 B 10.5 0.49 B 0.0 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.97] 8.5 0.38 A 8.4 0.39 A -0.1 No DA VALL DRIVE @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 3]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.96] 36.5 0.83 D 37.4 0.84 D 0.9 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.90] 28.0 0.71 C 28.4 0.72 C 0.4 No RATTLER ROAD @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 4]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 9.1 0.40 A 9.1 0.41 A 0.0 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 8.2 0.48 A 8.2 0.49 A 0.0 No LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 5]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.83] 6.3 0.47 A 7.1 0.51 A 0.8 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.93] 4.8 0.39 A 6.1 0.41 A 1.3 No BOB HOPE DRIVE @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 6]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 22.7 0.73 C 23.0 0.74 C 0.3 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.97] 23.0 0.68 C 23.3 0.68 C 0.3 No EASTBOUND I-10 RAMPS @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 7]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.88] 4.3 0.59 A 4.4 0.60 A 0.1 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 5.9 0.60 A 5.9 0.61 A 0.0 No BOB HOPE DRIVE @ CASINO [Intersection 9]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.83] 4.7 0.49 A 4.7 0.49 A 0.0 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.87] 6.9 0.41 A 6.9 0.41 A 0.0 No a. Delay = Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Assumes intersection geometrics shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 and an eight percent truck mix. Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operation methodology implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ Version 5.3). LOS is the intersection level of service. LOS was determined from the delay ≤10 sec./veh.=LOS A; >10 and ≤20 sec./veh.=LOS B; >20 and ≤35 sec./veh.=LOS C; >35 and ≤55 sec./veh.=LOS D; >55 and ≤80 sec./veh.=LOS E; >80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per 2000 HCM page 10-16.

See Appendix 3 for the signalized intersection HCS worksheets. 12-2049
5-17
Table 5-7 (Continued)
Year 2022 Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS
At the Signalized Key Intersections With and Without Initial Phase of Projecta Signalized Intersection Year 2022 Without Project Year 2022 With Initial Phase Change In [Intersection Number] Delay Critical LOS Delay Critical LOS Delay LOS (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.)
DA VALL DRIVE @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 10]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.83] 29.3 0.70 C 29.9 0.71 C 0.6 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.88] 30.0 0.76 C 30.0 0.76 C 0.0 No LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 11]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.78] 6.7 0.37 A 6.9 0.38 A 0.2 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.85] 6.0 0.52 A 6.2 0.54 A 0.2 No WESTIN MISSION HILLS @ DINAH SHORE DR. [Int. 12]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.90] 6.1 0.34 A 10.7 0.40 B 4.6 A-B - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 7.7 0.49 A 8.8 0.53 A 1.1 No Bob Hope Drive @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 14]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.84] 27.2 0.67 C 27.7 0.70 C 0.5 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.89] 26.4 0.65 C 27.0 0.66 C 0.6 No KEY LARGO AVE. @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 15]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 5.1 0.26 A 5.1 0.27 A 0.0 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.92] 5.6 0.33 A 5.7 0.34 A 0.1 No MONTEREY AVE. @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 16]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.86] 21.6 0.67 C 21.8 0.68 C 0.2 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.95] 33.2 0.87 C 33.8 0.88 C 0.6 No BOB HOPE DRIVE @ GERALD FORD DRIVE [Intersection 17]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.85] 38.9 0.83 D 40.0 0.84 D 1.1 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.96] 33.4 0.79 C 33.8 0.80 C 0.4 No a. Delay = Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Assumes intersection geometrics shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 and an eight percent truck mix. Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operation methodology implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ Version 5.3). LOS is the intersection level of service. LOS was determined from the delay (≤10 sec./veh.=LOS A; >10 and ≤20 sec./veh.=LOS B; >20 and ≤35 sec./veh.=LOS C; >35 and ≤55 sec./veh.=LOS D; >55 and ≤80 sec./veh.=LOS E; >80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per 2000 HCM page 10-16.

See Appendix 3 for the signalized intersection HCS worksheets. 12-2050
5-18
Table 5-8
Horizon Year 2035 Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOSa
At the Unsignalized Site Access Intersections With and Without Project Buildout Year 2035 Without Project Year 2035 With Project Buildout Change In Unsignalized Intersection
[Intersection Number]
Major Street
Left Turnb
Minor-Street
Approachc
Major Street
Left Turnb
Minor-Street
Approachc
Minor-Street
Approach
Delay/LOS Move Delay/LOS Delay/LOS Move Delay/LOS Delay LOS LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ VIA BELLA [INTERSECTION 8]
- Morning Peak Hour 7.7/A EB 10.2/B 7.8/A EB 11.0/B 0.8 No - Evening Peak Hour 7.5/A EB 9.7/A 7.9/A EB 12.3/B 2.6 A-B LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ACCESS [INT. 22] This intersection would not exist. - Morning Peak Hour NA NA NA 7.7/A WB 10.0/A NA NA
- Evening Peak Hour NA NA NA 8.0/A WB 10.5/B NA NA
LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ RETAIL ACCESS [INTERSECTION 23] This intersection would not exist. - Morning Peak Hour NA NA NA 7.8/A WB 10.0/B NA NA
- Evening Peak Hour NA NA NA 8.3/A WB 12.6/B NA NA
a. Appendix 3 includes the HCS worksheets. The values shown assume a five percent truck mix, a peak hour factor of 1.00 and the intersection geometrics and traffic control shown in Figure 6-4.

NA=Not Applicable. The change in delay and LOS associated with site traffic is not directly comparable if an intersection is unsignalized without the proposed project but signalized with the project. b. Delay=average control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the left-turn move from the major street onto the minor street. LOS was determined from the delay (0-10 sec./veh. = LOS A; 10-15 sec./veh. = LOS B; 15-25 sec./veh. = LOS C; 25-35 sec./veh. = LOS D; 35-50 sec./veh. = LOS E; 50+ sec./veh. = LOS F) per HCM 2000 page 17-2 and 17-32. Intersection 22 has an average control delay that rounds up to 10.0 seconds per vehicle (LOS A) whereas intersection 22 has slightly more than 10.0 but less than 10.1 seconds per vehicle of delay, which corresponds to LOS B. c. EB= Eastbound. WB=Westbound. Delay=average approach control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the minor-street approach that exhibits the most delay at this intersection. LOS was determined per the HCM 2000 (page 17-2 and 17-32).
12-2051
5-19
Table 5-9
Year 2035 Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS
At the Signalized Key Intersections With and Without Project Buildouta Signalized Intersection Year 2035 Without Project Year 2035 + Project Buildout Change In [Intersection Number] Delay Critical LOS Delay Critical LOS Delay LOS (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.)
BOB HOPE DR. @ WESTBOUND I-10 RAMPS [Intersection 1]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 15.4 0.45 B 17.6 0.50 B 2.2 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 20.0 0.56 C 35.8 0.91 D 15.8 C-D BOB HOPE DR. @ EASTBOUND I-10 RAMPS [Intersection 2]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 10.8 0.39 B 10.6 0.46 B -0.2 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 8.9 0.37 A 7.0 0.57 A -1.9 No DA VALL DRIVE @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 3] (Add second southbound left-turn lane.) (Add second southbound left-turn lane.) - Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 41.0 0.90 D 47.7 0.95 D 6.7 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 27.0 0.70 C 40.5 0.93 D 13.5 C-D RATTLER ROAD @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 4]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 8.7 0.40 A 9.1 0.44 A 0.4 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 7.3 0.47 A 7.5 0.62 A 0.2 No LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 5]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 6.0 0.42 A 7.3 0.52 A 1.3 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 4.9 0.41 A 11.5 0.69 B 6.6 A-B BOB HOPE DRIVE @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 6]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 21.1 0.62 C 21.9 0.69 C 0.8 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 22.5 0.63 C 37.6 0.85 D 15.1 C-D EASTBOUND I-10 RAMPS @ RAMON ROAD [Intersection 7]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 3.4 0.48 A 3.6 0.56 A 0.2 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 5.1 0.51 A 9.2 0.85 A 4.1 No BOB HOPE DRIVE @ CASINO [Intersection 9]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 12.8 0.47 B 15.9 0.59 B 3.1 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 12.2 0.37 B 30.7 0.83 C 18.7 B-C a. Delay = Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). The values shown assume the intersection approach lanes shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-4 and a five percent truck mix. Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operation methodology implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ Version 5.3). LOS is the intersection level of service. LOS was determined from the delay (≤10 sec./veh.=LOS A; >10 and ≤20 sec./veh.=LOS B; >20 and ≤35 sec./veh.=LOS C; >35 and ≤55 sec./veh.=LOS D; >55 and ≤80 sec./veh.=LOS E; >80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per 2000 HCM page 10-16. See Appendix 3 for the signalized intersection HCS worksheets. The mitigation necessary for intersection 3 to maintain LOS D or better operation was assumed both with and without site traffic to show the change in delay and LOS associated with site traffic. 12-2052
5-20
Table 5-9 (Continued)
Year 2035 Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS
At the Signalized Key Intersections With and Without Project Buildouta Signalized Intersection Year 2035 Without Project Year 2035 + Project Buildout Change In [Intersection Number] Delay Critical LOS Delay Critical LOS Delay LOS (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.) V/C (Sec./Veh.)
DA VALL DRIVE @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 10]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 26.4 0.58 C 27.2 0.62 C 0.8 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 27.6 0.66 C 31.6 0.79 C 4.0 No LOS ALAMOS ROAD @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 11]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 6.4 0.30 A 7.2 0.34 A 0.8 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 5.6 0.46 A 9.7 0.63 A 4.1 No WESTIN MISSION HILLS @ DINAH SHORE DR. [Int. 12]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 5.9 0.28 A 6.8 0.31 A 0.9 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 7.3 0.43 A 7.8 0.51 A 0.5 No WESTIN RESORT VILLAS @ DINAH SHORE DR. [Int.13]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 5.1 0.24 A 6.7 0.29 A 1.6 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 6.0 0.36 A 17.0 0.65 B 11.0 A-B Bob Hope Drive @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 14]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 23.1 0.54 C 25.5 0.58 C 2.4 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 25.9 0.63 C 30.9 0.82 C 5.0 No KEY LARGO AVE. @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 15]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 10.2 0.35 B 9.9 0.37 A -0.3 B-A - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 13.5 0.56 B 13.9 0.66 B 0.4 No MONTEREY AVE. @ DINAH SHORE DRIVE [Intersection 16]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 20.1 0.58 C 21.2 0.61 C 1.1 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 33.5 0.83 C 41.0 0.93 D 7.5 C-D BOB HOPE DRIVE @ GERALD FORD DRIVE [Intersection 17]b (Add a second eastbound left-turn lane.) (Add a second eastbound left-turn lane.) - Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 35.5 0.80 D 38.6 0.84 D 3.1 No - Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 31.7 0.76 C 41.0 0.90 D 9.3 C-D a. Delay = Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Assumes intersection geometrics shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-4 and a five percent truck mix. Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operation methodology implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ Version 5.3). LOS is the intersection level of service. LOS was determined from the delay (≤10 sec./veh.=LOS A; >10 and ≤20 sec./veh.=LOS B; >20 and ≤35 sec./veh.=LOS C; >35 and ≤55 sec./veh.=LOS D; >55 and ≤80 sec./veh.=LOS E; >80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per 2000 HCM page 10-16. See Appendix 3 for the signalized intersection HCS worksheets.
b. The mitigation identified for intersection 17 to maintain LOS D or better operation was assumed both with and without site traffic to show the change in the delay and LOS associated with site traffic. 12-2053
5-21
The overall intersection delay and levels of service shown in Tables 5-8 and 5-9 assume the approach lane geometrics at the key intersections shown in Figure 6-4. The average intersection delay shown in Table 5-9 reflects a lower projected truck mix (five percent) and a higher peak hour factor (1.00), consistent with the input parameters specified by the Riverside County Transportation Department in Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide (April 2008). The higher peak hour factor reflects future conditions with heavier traffic volumes distributed more evenly during the peak hours.

Future Horizon Year 2035 Plus Project Buildout Conditions As shown in Table 5-8, with site traffic, the unsignalized intersection of Los Alamos Road and Via Bella [Intersection 8] is projected to provide acceptable levels of service during the morning and evening peak hours. Motorists making left turns from Los Alamos Road will experience LOS A and those traveling eastbound on Via Bella will experience an average delay during the peak hours which is consistent with LOS B or better operation. The two site access intersections proposed on Los Alamos Road, between Ramon Road and Via Bella, are projected to operate at LOS B or better during the peak hours with two-way stop control and the intersection approach lanes shown in Figure 6-4.

As shown in Table 5-9, the traffic associated with the full development of the proposed project is expected to change the peak hour level of service by one LOS at nine of the signalized key intersections evaluated. Five of these intersections [Intersections 1, 5, 6, 15, and 16] are projected to operate at LOS D or better without mitigation. Two of these intersections [Intersections 3 and 17] would require mitigation to meet the minimum performance standard. The remaining two intersections [Intersections 9 and 13] would be improved to accommodate site access at acceptable levels of service in conjunction with the development of the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan.

As shown in Table 5-9, two of the existing key intersections [Intersection 9 and Intersection 13] would function as signalized full-turn site access intersections in the year 2035. The signalized intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Casino [Intersection 9] would operate at LOS B during the morning peak hour and LOS C during the evening peak hour with site traffic in the horizon year 2035 and the intersection approach lanes shown in Figure 6-4.

A traffic control signal would be installed in conjunction with the site access connection proposed opposite the existing Westin Resort Villas access on Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13]. This traffic control signal would be activated p rior to
buildout of the project site, when warranted by site-generated traffic. As shown in Table 5-9, with site traffic, traffic signal control, and the intersection approach lanes shown in Figure 6-4, this intersection would operate at LOS A during the morning peak hour and LOS B during the evening peak hour in the horizon year 2035.

It can be concluded from the analysis summarized in Tables 5-8 and 5-9 that the General Plan street system would accommodate the traffic associated with buildout of the proposed project in the horizon year 2035 at acceptable levels of service. Two of the off-site signalized key intersections evaluated [Intersection 3 and Intersection 17] would require localized mitigation in the form of an additional left-turn lane on one approach by the year 2035 to maintain acceptable levels of service. These required off-site improvements would be consistent with the General Plan classifications of the two roadways where mitigation would be required.

Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road
The eastern side of Da Vall Drive has been improved, between Ramon Road and a point just north of Via Del Paradiso, to provide approximately 35 feet of pavement with curbs, gutters, and a multi-use trail. The two existing southbound lanes on Da Vall Drive at this intersection include a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. However, one additional southbound left-turn lane will be required on Da Vall Drive, at the intersection of Ramon Road, to accommodate the projected horizon year 2035 traffic volumes at acceptable levels of service.

The right-of-way reserved along Da Vall Drive, based upon its historical classification in the city and county General Plans appears to have been 100 feet. Da Vall Drive, north of Ramon Road, is currently designated as a four-lane divided Major Highway by Cathedral City, which would typically provide a 16-foot median with two 12-foot travel lanes and an 8-foot shoulder in each direction within a 112-foot right-of-way. Da Vall Drive is currently classified as a four-lane divided Minor Arterial by the City of Rancho Mirage. Minor Arterials typically provide an 86-foot roadbed and a 16-foot median within a 110-foot right-of-way. The difference between the two cross-sections would be approximately one less foot of right-of-way and three additional feet of pavement between the curb and the median on the east side of the centerline.

The alignment of any street is often governed by the existing or likely future development along it. Once a street alignment is constructed, changing its primary geometry is difficult and costly. Noticeable changes in alignment to accommodate right-of- 12-2054
5-22
way conditions on opposite sides of an intersection are undesirable because the view of the road ahead is limited, and operational problems may result, especially at night. Design improvements to existing intersections are often constrained in urban areas. Since the centerline of Da Vall Drive also reflects the city limit of the adjacent cities of Rancho Mirage and Cathedral City, the ultimate improvements to Da Vall Drive, north of Ramon Road, will require coordination between these two cities to maintain the location of the centerline.

Although the centerline of Da Vall Drive has been established, the roadway improvements have been inconsistent to date because the right-of-way required and applicable standard cross-section have changed over time. The existing land uses located along both sides of Da Vall Drive limit the amount of right-of-way available. However, the existing development on the west side of Da Vall Drive (i.e., the administrative facilities at the Desert Memorial Park Cemetery) appears to represent the critical constraint with respect to the provision of dual southbound left-turn lanes on Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road in the future.

The lack of sufficient right-of-way on the west side of Da Vall Drive to accommodate three southbound lanes (dual left-turn lanes and a shared through/right lane) at the intersection of Ramon Road is an issue that will have to be addressed by Cathedral City to maintain traffic operations at this intersection in the year 2035 at levels of service consistent with the Cathedral City performance standard (LOS D). The existing southbound left-turn volume at this intersection (218 VPH during the morning peak hour) exceeds the 200 VPH criteria used by most designers considering the provision of dual left- turn lanes.

Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive
A deficiency was identified for the horizon year 2035 conditions at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Gerald Ford Drive.

The existing eastbound left-turn bay at this intersection is 150 feet in length and can accommodate up to seven passenger vehicles. During the peak hour in the peak season, approximately 163 vehicles per hour (VPH) currently make eastbound left turns at this intersection. From a traffic capacity and safety perspective, it is important for turn bays on arterial streets to be long enough to store all arriving vehicles during peak traffic conditions. The eastbound left-turn volume on Gerald Ford Drive at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive [Intersection 17] will require additional queue storage length in the future.

Most designers consider providing dual left-turn lanes whenever the left-turn volume approaches or exceeds 200 VPH. As shown in Figure 4-9 and Figure 4-10, the eastbound left-turn volume on Gerald Ford Drive at Bob Hope Drive is projected to increase to 194 VPH during the evening peak hour in the year 2022 and 208 VPH by the year 2035 without site traffic. The projected year 2035 plus project eastbound left-turn volume of 260 VPH would require additional queue storage length to prevent spillback into the adjacent through lane.

This deficiency was assumed to be mitigated in the year 2035 by improvements planned and funded by the City of Rancho Mirage that are scheduled to be completed during the year 2015. Although the planned improvements will provide dual left-turn lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane on all four approaches at this intersection, Table 5-9 and Figure 6-4 reflect the minimum intersection improvements required to achieve the performance standard.

Future Site Access Intersections
Following the site access improvements proposed in conjunction with the Section 24 Specific Plan, all of the future proposed full-turn site access intersections would provide acceptable levels of service upon completion of the proposed development.

Future conditions at the three unsignalized site access intersections along Los Alamos Road [Intersections 8, 22, and 23] are shown in Table 5-8. As shown therein, these three unsignalized site access intersections would provide LOS B or better operation for motorists on the minor-street approaches. This LOS assumes a single-lane minor-street approach and that Los Alamos Road is improved as a two-lane roadway with a raised median and a left-turn bay at each intersection, as shown in Figure 6-4.

Future conditions at the three signalized site access intersections proposed opposite existing T-intersections on Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive [Intersections 9, 12, and 13] are shown in Table 5-9 and assume the approach lanes shown in Figure 6-4. The project-related impact at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Casino [Intersection 9] appears to be slightly greater with the existing plus project buildout scenario than with the horizon 2035+project buildout scenario.

Although the traffic volumes at this intersection would be higher with the horizon 2035+project buildout scenario, the existing plus project buildout scenario was evaluated with the higher existing truck mix and existing peak hour factor. The recommended intersection lane requirements would be the same for both scenarios. 12-2055
5-23
Signalized full-turn site access connections are proposed at 0.25-mile spacing intervals along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive. Full-turn site access connections along Dinah Shore Drive are proposed opposite the existing signalized intersection providing access for the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort and Spa (1,780 feet east of Los Alamos Road) as well as opposite the unsignalized access for the Westin Resort Villas (1,220 feet west of Bob Hope Drive). With site traffic, the peak hour traffic signal warrants would be met and new traffic control signals would be installed at the following full-turn site access intersections:
• Westin Resort Villas @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13], • Street “C” @ Ramon Road [Intersection 18],
• Street “D” @ Ramon Road [Intersection 19],
• Bob Hope Drive @ Street “D” [Intersection 20], and
• Bob Hope Drive @ Street “E” [Intersection 21].

Table 5-10 shows the projected overall intersection average delay and levels of service during the peak hours at the proposed future full-turn signalized site access intersections along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive [Intersections 18, 19, 20, and 21]. As shown therein, all four of the intersections proposed along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours in the horizon year 2035 with the traffic volumes generated upon buildout of the proposed project. During the peak hours the levels of service at these site access intersections are projected to be LOS C or better.

Table 5-10
Horizon Year 2035 Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS
At the Signalized Site Access Intersections
Signalized Intersection Avg. Delay a Critical LOSb
(Sec./Veh.) V/C Ratio
STREET “C” @ RAMON ROAD [INTERSECTION 18]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 5.0 0.44 LOS A
- Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 17.1 0.81 LOS B
STREET “D” @ RAMON ROAD [INTERSECTION 19]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 5.6 0.47 LOS A
- Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 28.2 0.93 LOS C
BOB HOPE DRIVE @ STREET “D” [INTERSECTION 20]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 6.8 0.51 LOS A
- Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 16.7 0.78 LOS B
BOB HOPE DRIVE @ STREET “E” [INTERSECTION 21]
- Morning Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 64 0.53 LOS A
- Evening Peak Hour [PHF=1.00] 11.2 0.69 LOS B
a. Average Delay = Average Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Assumes existing intersection geometrics as shown in Figure 6-4 and a five percent truck mix. Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operational methodology implemented by Version 5.3 of the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+). See Appendix 3 for the signalized intersection HCS worksheets. PHF is the peak hour factor specified in the Riverside County Transportation Department Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide (2008). b. LOS is the intersection level of service. The LOS was determined from the delay (≤10 sec./veh.=LOS A; >10 and ≤20 sec./veh.=LOS B; >20 and ≤35 sec./veh.=LOS C; >35 and ≤55 sec./veh.=LOS D; >55 and ≤80 sec./veh.=LOS E; >80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per page 10-16 of the HCM.

5.4 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
When properly used, traffic control signals are valuable devices for the control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. They assign the right-of-way to the various traffic movements and thereby profoundly influence traffic flow. The justification for the installation of a traffic signal at an intersection is based on the warrants adopted by Caltrans in the January 13, 2012 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and the Federal Highway Administration. There are nine basic types of 12-2056
5-24
traffic signal warrants including those for: eight-hour vehicular volume, four-hour vehicle volume, peak hour, pedestrian volume, school crossing, coordinated signal system, crash experience, roadway network, and intersection near a grade crossing.

The installation of a traffic signal should not be considered unless one or more of the factors described in the warrants is met. However, the satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily sufficient justification in and of itself for the installation of signals.

Delay, congestion, approach conditions, driver confusion, future land use or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment beyond that which could be provided by stop signs must be demonstrated. Improper or unwarranted signal installations may cause: (1) excessive delay; (2) disobedience of the signal indications; (3) circuitous travel on alternate routes; and (4) increased crash frequency. Consequently, a traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing the traffic control signal would improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. A traffic control signal should not be installed if it would seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow.

Peak hour signal warrants (see Appendix 4) are used as a preliminary indication of the need for traffic signals in the future.

These signal warrants should be considered in conjunction with the unsignalized intersection peak hour analysis to provide a more complete understanding of the need for signalization. The actual design and installation of signals should be based upon detailed studies that include extensive traffic counts.

Rural volume warrants (70 percent of the urban warrants) apply when the 85th percentile speed of traffic on the major street exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or a rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community with a population under 10,000. All other areas are considered to be urban.

Rural peak hour signal volume warrants were checked for each of the unsignalized site access intersections. The signal warrant spreadsheet is included in Appendix 4. Traffic signal warrants would be met and traffic control signals are recommended to maintain acceptable peak hour levels of service at the following intersections:
• The Westin Resort Villas @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13], • Street “C” @ Ramon Road [Intersection 18],
• Street “D” @ Ramon Road [Intersection 19],
• Bob Hope Drive @ Street “D” [Intersection 20], and
• Bob Hope Drive @ Street “E” [Intersection 21].

A
ll five of the intersections found to warrant traffic signals with year 2035 plus project buildout traffic volumes would function as primary site access intersections. Signalization is proposed at all five of these intersections in conjunction with the implementation of the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan.

Progression Speed and Signal Spacing
Traffic volumes change over time as development and activity patterns change. Signalized intersection spacing is an essential element of a safe and efficient arterial roadway. Interconnected traffic signals that are synchronized to facilitate the progression of platoons of through traffic can increase capacity.

As arterial and cross street traffic volumes increase, longer cycle lengths are used to minimize lost time, especially when there are more than two signal phases. Cycle lengths of 80 to 120 seconds are common on major arterials is suburban areas. Closely-spaced or irregularly-spaced traffic signals on arterial roadways can result in frequent stops, and unnecessary delay. Long and uniform traffic signal spacing allows timing plans that can efficiently accommodate traffic volumes in both peak and off-peak periods as conditions change over time. The access standards applied throughout Riverside County specify 0.25-mile intersection spacing for Urban Arterials with six or eight through lanes. The Section 24 Specific Plan would be consistent with this access standard.

When a signalized intersection deviates from an established uniform interval, progression can be maintained by increasing the percentage of the cycle length devoted to the major arterial and decreasing the green time allocated to the intersecting street. The green time on Ramon Road shall be maximized by providing multiple lanes on the minor-street approaches at the site access intersections. This will facilitate the development of a traffic signal timing plan in the future that maximizes the minimum through bandwidths along Ramon Road.
12-2057
5-25

5.5 Site Access and Internal Circulation Analysis
The site access points in the Section 24 Specific plan were located and designed in accordance with accepted planning principles and current traffic engineering practices. The site access and internal circulation plan would control access to more efficiently serve the mobility needs of through traffic on the adjacent arterial roadways as well as site access needs.

The right-turn only access points would distribute the site traffic more evenly along key mobility corridors, thereby reducing the disruption of through traffic associated with turning movements generated by site development at the proposed new signalized site access intersections along these corridors. The internal circulation plan is designed to provide cross-parcel connections to encourage site traffic to utilize the internal roadways for internal trip making.

The site access plan would maintain adequate spacing from adjacent street and driveway intersections for the primary signalized access points along the perimeter of the project. The Riverside County access standards by corridor classification shown in Table 3-2 specify the use of one-quarter mile (1320-foot) intersection spacing along Urban Arterials and Arterial Highways. The signalized site access intersections proposed to serve the project would be located at one- quarter-mile spacing intervals along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive, consistent with the Riverside County standards and opposite the access connections planned to serve the Section 19 Specific Plan (to the east) and the Section 13 Specific Plan (to the north).

Adequate inbound and outbound capacity shall be provided to accommodate the site traffic volumes. The proposed traffic control type at the site access intersections appears to be appropriate. The proposed site access plan incorporates joint access (the sharing of a driveway access point by two or more planning areas), which is a desirable and effective means of minimizing the adverse impacts of site access connections on adjacent streets.

Right-Turn Deceleration Lanes
While not required to achieve acceptable levels of service at the site access intersections, right-turn lanes may be used to improve both safety and traffic operations at intersections by providing space for the deceleration and storage of right- turning vehicles. A number of factors enter into the decision regarding whether right-turn lanes should be used including:
speeds, traffic volumes, truck mix, capacity, roadway type, service provided, and the arrangement and frequency of intersections.

Careful consideration should be given to the provision of right-turn deceleration lanes at the site access intersections along Bob Hope Drive, Ramon R oad, and Dinah Shore Drive to minimize the disruption of platoons caused by vehicles entering and exiting the proposed access connections and maintain traffic progression on the abutting high-speed arterials.

Allowing vehicles to change speeds in a right-turn lane rather than in a through-traffic lane minimizes the degree of interference with through traffic but also reduces speed differentials, thereby improving traffic safety. A right-turn lane can preclude the undesirable effects resulting from the deceleration of turning vehicles and minimize collisions between vehicles turning right and trailing vehicles, particularly on high-volume, high-speed major roads. In general, high-volume and high-speed (greater than 45 mph) roadways with access points projected to accommodate 40 or more right-turning vehicles during the peak hour (or more than 1,000 right-turning vehicles per day) would benefit from exclusive right-turn deceleration lanes. Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 provide the right-turn entering volumes at each site access connection proposed.

A right-turn deceleration lane may result in a reduction in intersection sight distance. Vehicles in the right-turn lane may block the sight line of drivers waiting to turn right out of a site access to through traffic approaching from the left. This can be a significant issue where right-turn-on-red movements are permitted from the site access connection onto the major street.

Another design consideration is that larger curb radii produce higher vehicle entry speeds that can negatively impact the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. To reduce the potential severity of vehicle-pedestrian collisions, the design must minimize the curb radii while still accommodating the turning path of the design vehicle to reduce the speeds of turning vehicles and pedestrian crossing distances.

Site Distance Requirements
Providing adequate intersection sight distance at proposed site access connections ensures that drivers leaving the project site can see far enough along the roadway they are turning onto to perceive any approaching vehicles and judge their rate of closure, then enter the abutting roadway safely when a suitable gap in traffic occurs. Adequate stopping sight distance 12-2058
5-26
allows drivers approaching the site access point on the major street to see a vehicle turning onto the roadway ahead of them and safely take evasive action, if necessary, by slowing down or changing lanes. Both of these sight distances are a function of the speed of vehicles on the major abutting arterial.

Elderly drivers and other drivers who are unfamiliar with an area (tourists, visitors, etc.) may require more time to recognize and react to a potential conflict ahead at an unsignalized site access point. Decision sight distance reflects the extra time required for unfamiliar drivers to recognize and safely respond to an unexpected, difficult, or unfamiliar situation. This is an important consideration when locating and designing access to land uses that may be frequented by drivers with these characteristics.

Long driveway spacing and limiting the types of movements that can be made at individual driveways can simplify the driving task and allow drivers on high-speed arterial streets to focus on one approaching intersection at a time. Where heavy trucks are likely to use an unsignalized access connection, the provision of intersection sight distance in excess of the minimum may be appropriate. Heavy vehicles require more time to complete their turns and accelerate than passenger vehicles. As a result, they require larger gaps in the approaching traffic in which to complete their turning movement out of a site and onto a high-speed arterial.

Clear sight triangles must be provided and maintained free of potential obstructions (such as buildings, perimeter walls, parked vehicles, signs, entry treatments, vegetation over 20 inches high, etc.) at the site access intersections as well as at on-site circulation intersections. On-street parking frequently obstructs sight distances and should be prohibited within the sight triangles at intersections and driveways. Inappropriate landscaping or inadequate landscape maintenance within the sight triangle can also obstruct sight distance at intersections and site driveways.

The provision of intersection sight distance in excess of the minimum would enhance traffic safety at the unsignalized right- in/right-out site access connections proposed along the high-speed arterials that border the site (particularly Bob Hope Drive). With a speed limit of 55 mph and a design speed of 60 mph, the minimum intersection sight distance would be 575 feet on Bob Hope Drive. Drivers of passenger vehicles waiting to make a right-turn from site Access “E” onto Bob Hope Drive (see Figure 4-6) will need to be able to see at least 575 feet to their l eft in order to judge the speed of approaching traffic and turn safely onto Bob Hope Drive when an adequate gap in the approaching traffic appears. The minimum intersection sight distance of 575 feet will influence where the site access is located along Bob Hope Drive because the roadway alignment includes a horizontal curve that reduces the stopping sight distance available for motorists approaching on Bob Hope Drive as well as the intersection sight distance for motorists exiting the site onto Bob Hope Drive inside the horizontal curve at Access “E”.

The eastbound Street “E” approach to Bob Hope Drive (Intersection 21 in Figure 2-3) also appears to be located inside the horizontal curve on Bob Hope Drive. Adequate intersection sight distance will need to be provided and maintained at Intersection 21 for vehicles exiting the site on Street “E” to safely execute right-turn-on-red movements onto Bob Hope Drive.

Site Access Spacing on Los Alamos Road
The Section 24 Specific Plan includes two access intersections along Los Alamos Road within a distance of approximately 1,430 feet between Ramon Road [Intersection 5] and Via Bella [Intersection 8]. If the two access locations are evenly spaced, Intersection 22 and Intersection 23 would be approximately 475 feet apart. Driveway spacing is tied to the posted speed limit along arterials as well as the separation between the proposed access connections and adjacent roadway intersections.

Criteria used for the spacing of unsignalized access points include: (1) the distance from an intersection to the nearest driveway (corner clearance); and (2) the distance between driveways. Adequate corner clearance avoids conflicts between driveway traffic and vehicles stacking or turning at adjacent roadway intersections. The 95th-percentile back-of-queue length for the northbound left-turn movement on Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road is projected to be 12 car lengths (300 feet) during the evening peak hour in the year 2035 with site traffic. Therefore, if Street “B” intersects Los Alamos at least 300 feet south of Ramon Road, it will be outside the functional area of the adjacent intersection and provide adequate corner clearance.

The minimum standard for access spacing is frequently the same as for stopping sight distance. For example, a 35 mph roadway would require a minimum of 250 feet between site access points. This access spacing allows drivers on roadway where site access in being proposed to be prepared for entering and exiting vehicles at each site access point. 12-2059
5-27
The current posted speed limit on Los Alamos Road is 50 mph. With a posted speed of 50 mph, the stopping sight distance would be 425 feet and the intersection sight distance would 590 feet. Therefore, the minimum separation between the site access points would be the stopping sight distance of 425 feet. A desirable intersection spacing would be equal to the intersection sight distance of 590 feet for a passenger car making a left turn onto Los Alamos Road from a stop. When Los Alamos Road is fully improved, it will likely have a lower posted speed limit. With a lower posted speed of 45 mph, the stopping sight distance would be 360 feet and the intersection sight distance would be 530 feet. The site access spacing along Los Alamos Road, between Via Bella and Ramon Road, should reflect the minimum stopping sight distance, based on the speed of the vehicles on Los Alamos Road. Clear sight triangles should be provided and maintained at each of the proposed site access intersections along Los Alamos Road.

5.6 Other Considerations
Future Improvement of Los Alamos Road
The year 2035 traffic volumes for Los Alamos Road, adjacent to Section 24, are projected to remain less than 10,000 ADT, and could be accommodated by a two-lane divided roadway. Without Los Alamos Road extended south of Dinah Shore Drive, the potential for growth in the non-site through traffic volumes on Los Alamos Road from the area south of Dinah Shore Drive would be limited.

The City of Rancho Mirage Sphere of Influence area, between Interstate 10 and Ramon Road, included approximately 623 acres designated R-M in the City General Plan which allows up to 4 dwelling units per acre. The Rancho Mirage General Plan Traffic Model assumed 15 weekday trips per acre for this designation based upon an average density of 3.2 dwelling per acre. This would result in 9,350 weekday trips being generated east of Da Vall Drive and west of Bob Hope Drive, between Ramon Road and Interstate 10. For north/south access, these trips could use Da Vall Drive, Rattler Road, and future roadways intersecting Ramon Road opposite Mission Hills and Section 24. The portion of these trips likely to use Los Alamos Road, to travel south of Ramon Road would be relatively small and could be accommodated by the two-lane divided cross-section proposed.

The City of Rancho Mirage annexed the portion of Section 13 located s outh of Interstate 10 and north of Ramon Road, on both sides of Bob Hope Drive, in 2012. The General Plan land use designation for this area is regional interstate commercial, a designation that allows mixed-use development with commercial retail, office, resort hotel and restaurant uses. The City’s General Plan requires the preparation and approval of a Specific Plan prior to development of this area.

Prior to approval, the Section 13 Specific Plan will be subject to environmental and development review by the City of Rancho Mirage.

The three unsignalized project access intersections (Intersection 8, 22, and 23) were evaluated with year 2035 traffic volumes (see Figure 4-12) and the lane geometrics shown in Figure 6-4. All three intersections are projected to provide LOS B or better levels of service for all movements with approach lanes consistent with a two-lane divided roadway cross- section. These lanes can be provided with the median configured as a two-way left-turn lane or as a raised or painted median with a left-turn lane at intersections.

The existing lane configuration at the intersection of Los Alamos Road and Ramon Road would be adequate to accommodate year 2035 plus project traffic volumes. If the land north of Ramon Road is developed and takes access to Ramon Road opposite Los Alamos Road, the intersection of Los Alamos Road and Ramon Road may ultimately need to be restriped to provide three northbound approach lanes (a dedicated left-turn lane, a northbound through lane, and a dedicated right-turn lane).

To provide the maximum flexibility for future development, Los Alamos Road, south of Ramon Road, should provide sufficient pavement width to accommodate at least three northbound approach lanes (with no on-street parking permitted) and one 20-foot wide southbound departure lane (a single 12-foot wide travel lane with an 8-foot wide shoulder for use in emergencies and to provide an adequate turning radius for large delivery vehicles). A future bicycle/golf cart/pedestrian path is shown along the east side of Los Alamos Road, between Dinah Shore Drive and Ramon Road, in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan . This bicycle/golf cart/pedestrian path is shown continuing north of Ramon Road, opposite the intersection of Los Alamos Road.
12-2060
5-28
Future Improvement of Dinah Shore Drive
The peak hour analysis of the intersections along Dinah Shore Drive indicates that with the existing approach lane geometrics, they will operate at LOS C or better in the year 2035 with project traffic. Daily traffic volumes projected by RIVTAM between Date Palm Drive and Bob Hope Drive are less than 30,000 vehicles per day. As a guideline for planning purposes, Riverside County has identified 32,300 vehicles per day as the maximum two-way daily traffic volume at the upper limit of LOS D for a typical 4-lane divided Arterial Highway. Therefore, Dinah Shore Drive has a projected horizon year 2035 plus project traffic demand that would be consistent with a four-lane divided cross-section.

Any potential benefit to be gained from widening Dinah Shore Drive to six lanes adjacent to the project site (in terms of providing additional capacity for regional through traffic) would be lost if the four-lane fully improved portion of Dinah Shore Drive west of the project site were not widened to six lanes as well. Dinah Shore Drive, from Cathedral City to Bob Hope Drive, is not expected to serve any major trip generators (other than the existing Cathedral City High School). The Cathedral City High School constrains future widening along Dinah Shore Drive. Future enrollment projections for Cathedral City High School are expected to decrease substantially now than the Rancho Mirage High School has opened. This should decrease future traffic volumes on Dinah Shore Drive, east and west of Da Vall Drive.

Although the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan traffic model projected much higher future traffic volumes for Dinah Shore Drive than RIVTAM , the roadbed is constrained to a four-lane cross-section (much of which is fully improved) west of Los Alamos Road. The adjacent Mission Hills resort community has completed full-width improvements along Dinah Shore Drive, including an existing underpass bridge structure to allow grade-separated access to the golf courses and homes north and south of Dinah Shore Drive. The Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort and Villas has fully improved the south side of Dinah Shore Drive, between Bob Hope Drive and Los Alamos Road. A raised median has been constructed as well as curbs and gutters on the north side of Dinah Shore Drive, adjacent to the project site.

The initial phase of the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would occupy approximately 320 acres adjacent to the north side of Dinah Shore Drive and generate substantially less traffic than the 320 acres designated R-M in t he City of City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. The ultimate site access plan for the Section 24 Specific Plan focuses site traffic away from Dinah Shore Drive and Los Alamos Road onto Bob Hope Drive. This should reduce future traffic demands on Dinah Shore Drive, between Bob Hope Drive and Los Alamos Road.

The RIVTAM projections conform to the SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast. While not anticipated by the year 2035, the potential exists for traffic volumes at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive to exceed the RIVTAM projections after the horizon year 2035. The Section 19 Specific Plan Traffic Study concluded that the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive could require dual left-turn lanes and exclusive right-turn lanes on all four approaches, as well as a third westbound through lane. The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan identifies this intersection as a critical intersection where additional right-of-way may be required to provide dual left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes in all directions. If a third westbound through lane is ultimately required at this intersection, it would only need to extend west of Bob Hope Drive for a distance of approximately 400 feet in order to provide additional capacity at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive. This westbound through lane could transition into an auxiliary right-turn deceleration lane serving the proposed right-in/right-out driveway for Planning Area 7A.

Bob Hope Drive at Ramon Road Future Improvements
When the Bob Hope Drive I-10 interchange was built, the west leg at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road was constructed with only two westbound through lanes for a distance of approximately 950 feet. The east leg of the intersection includes four lanes at the intersection but narrows to the east because the bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad and Interstate 10 has a 2-lane divided cross-section. Since there are only two westbound approach lanes on Ramon Road at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive the two existing westbound departure lanes at this intersection have a minimal impact on the intersection LOS. The existing dedicated southbound right-turn lane provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the existing and future year 2035 traffic volumes without a third westbound departure lane on Ramon Road, west of Bob Hope Drive.

In view of the high existing and projected future southbound right-turn volume on Bob Hope D rive at the intersection of Ramon Road, constructing a channelized free-flow right-turn lane with a dedicated downstream acceleration lane that transitions into a third westbound through lane on Ramon Road would appear to be a logical future improvement at this intersection. However, a free-flow right-turn lane would result in only a minor improvement in the overall operation of this intersection (i.e., a reduction in the weighted average intersection control delay of approximately two seconds per vehicle 12-2061
5-29
during the evening peak hour). Since this intersection is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service without mitigation, this improvement is not needed or recommended at this time.

The 95th-percentile back-of-queue length for the eastbound left-turn movement on Ramon Road at Bob Hope Drive is projected be nine vehicles per lane during the evening peak hour. Assuming 25 feet per vehicle, the queue storage length required for the year 2035 with project buildout traffic would be 225 feet per lane. Each existing eastbound left-turn lane on Ramon Road at Bob Hope Drive is 300 feet long (plus taper). Therefore, the existing eastbound dual left-turn lanes appear to provide adequate queue storage to accommodate the horizon year 2035 plus site traffic volumes.

The 95th-percentile back-of-queue length for the northbound left-turn movement on Bob Hope Drive at Ramon Road is projected be seventeen vehicles per lane during the evening peak hour. Assuming 25 feet per vehicle, the queue storage length required for the year 2035 with project buildout traffic would be 425 feet per lane. Each existing northbound left-turn lane is approximately 250 feet long (plus taper). Although, the northbound left-turn lanes appear to provide adequate queue storage currently they may ultimately require additional storage length to accommodate the queue during the peak hours. The 50th-percentile back-of-queue length in the year 2035 is projected to be 225 feet per lane.

Bob Hope Drive at Varner Road
The intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Varner Road is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours in the peak season with the existing intersection geometrics and the horizon year 2035 plus Section 24 Specific Plan traffic projections from RIVTAM. However, this intersection may ultimately experience greater traffic flows than projected by RIVTAM as a result of the 2014 annexation of the 591-acre North City Extended Specific Plan (NCESP) site to Cathedral City and the approval of the Specific Plan to guide the future development of that site.

The approval of the NCESP replaced the LI (Light Industrial) land use designation of this site in the Riverside County General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan with a Specific Plan designation. With the approved NCESP a mixed-use development with retail/commercial uses, restaurants, offices and service uses, light industrial uses, hotels, and residential land uses would be developed north of I-10.

Because of its p roximity to the I-10 interchange at Bob Hope Drive, the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Varner Road will function as the primary access intersection for the NCESP. If the ultimate traffic volumes generated by the future land uses within the NCESP site approach the projections in the traffic impact study prepared by Endo Engineering (which reflect the maximum allowed development intensity) improvements will be required at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Varner Road to maintain acceptable levels of service with or without traffic generated by the future development of the Section 24 Specific Plan.

Two percent of the daily Section 24 Specific Plan trip generation (1,160 daily trips) was assigned to Bob Hope Drive, south of Varner Road. The NCESP traffic impact study included 6,850 daily trips representing the future growth in background traffic on Bob Hope Drive, south of Varner Road. The 1,160 daily trips associated with buildout of the Section 24 Specific Plan would represent 17 percent of the daily increase in background traffic volumes evaluated in the North City Extended Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study . Some of the future residents of the Section 24 Specific Plan may use Bob Hope Drive and Varner Road to access the future employment opportunities and retail developments within the NCESP.

The NCESP traffic impact study was completed in the year 2013, prior to the development of a land use plan for the Section 24 project. Although that study did not explicitly address the Section 24 Specific Plan, the NCESP traffic study identified mitigation to accommodate a future growth in non-site traffic volumes on Bob Hope Drive (south of Varner Road) nearly six times the future traffic volume projected to result from the Section 24 Specific Plan.

Future development within the NCESP will be phased. As specific development plans are processed for individual planning areas within the NCESP, a focused traffic impact study may be required by Cathedral City to address site-specific issues and concerns including any future deficiencies in the operation of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Varner Road. A focused traffic impact study should evaluate any operational deficiencies and identify necessary improvements, prior to the construction of future phases of the NCESP development.

Future Conditions On Interstate 10
The existing ramps at the interchanges in the study area appear to provide adequate capacity to accommodate future traffic volumes in the horizon year 2035 with project buildout. The proposed p roject would increase the future traffic volumes on 12-2062
5-30
Interstate 10 as shown in Figure 4-5, Figure 4-12, Table 4-3, and Table 4-5. Upon project buildout, approximately 8,720 vehicles per day are projected to be added to I-10 west of Bob Hope Drive and 11,060 vehicles per day are projected to use I-10 east of Ramon Road. The year 2035 plus project weekday traffic projections for Interstate 10 from RIVTAM included 207,176 ADT (west of Bob Hope Drive) and 218,693 ADT (east of Ramon Road). A single-lane freeway ramp can accommodate approximately 16,000 ADT at the upper limit of LOS C and 18,000 ADT at the upper limit of LOS D. 5 The future daily ramp volumes (see Table 4-5) are projected to range from 3,260 to 16,400 vehicles per day.

The 2000 Route Concept Fact Sheet Interstate Route 10 (March 29, 2000) developed by the Caltrans District 8 Division of Planning is currently being updated, but provides relevant data for historical purposes. I-10 is a major east/west urban corridor and commuter route between Los Angeles and Riverside County. It connects the urban centers in Los Angeles County (to the west) to the rural areas in eastern Riverside County. It provides for the safe and efficient interstate and inter- regional movement of people and goods. In doing so, it also connects commerce, industry, agriculture, mineral wealth, and recreation spatially and economically to ports, airports, rail yards, and other states.

I-10 is included in the State Freeway and Expressway System and the State Interregional Road System. It is classified as a “High Emphasis” and “Gateway” route. Within District 8, I-10 is included in the National Highway System, the Department of Defense Priority Network and the Strategic Highway Corridor Network. The March 2000 route concept was to maintain LOS “E” during the peak periods in the urbanized and urbanizing areas and LOS “C” in the rural areas. The rationale for maintaining these levels of service was “to achieve a reasonable balance between desired levels of mobility and forecasted traffic with consideration of development abutting rights of way and constrained financial transportation resources”.

Implementation of intelligent transportation system, TDM, and TSM strategies are central to achieving the desired LOS.

Improvements previously identified as necessary to achieve the desirable LOS through the year 2015 included eight mixed- flow freeway lanes from State Route 62 (on the west) to Jefferson Street (on the east). That would require two additional mixed-flow lanes between Monterey Avenue and Jefferson Street. The long-term r ight-of-way needs for I-10, considering
buildout of the development portrayed in the surrounding local general plans as of the year 2000, included a ten-lane freeway (8 mixed-flow lanes plus 2 HOV lanes) through the urbanized and urbanizing areas from the Los Angeles County line to State Route 86. Four mixed-flow lanes were identified for the rural areas between SR-86 and the Arizona State Line.

Caltrans is responsible for the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the State highway system.

State Transportation Improvement funds are used for highway system improvements and apportioned with 25 percent from Caltrans and 75 percent from regional transportation planning agencies. The ultimate transportation corridor and long- term right-of-way needs associated with Interstate 10 in the Coachella Valley will be identified in the updated Interstate 10 Route Concept Report so that adequate right of way can be preserved for the ultimate route concept.

RIVTAM distributes regional “through” traffic among the major east-west arterials located between I-10 and Highway 111. It also assigns regional through traffic to Interstate 10, which is the major continuous high-speed transportation artery extending from the metropolitan areas in western Riverside County, Los Angeles County and Orange County through the Coachella Valley. The continued development of the arterial grid system in conjunction with the improvement of Interstate 10 freeway access points is expected to eventually reduce the overwhelming reliance on Highway 111 for inter-city travel in the Coachella Valley and increase the relative importance of Interstate 10. The future development between Interstate 10 and Highway 111 affords a unique opportunity to alter the balance of population and employment in the region. Future growth planned for the Coachella Valley must provide a better balance between jobs and the labor force to help the region remain a self-contained community. Consistent with this goal, the proposed project would create thousands of employment opportunities in close proximity to I-10 and residential development at a density sufficient to support public transit.

The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would improve the balance between local jobs and the local labor force within the Coachella Valley. The employment opportunities would be located near a major transit center being planned between the project site and Interstate 10. The land use types and intensities proposed are generally consistent with the Riverside County General Plan and the W estern Coachella Valley Area Plan (Commercial Retail, Commercial Tourist, Medium Density Residential). The total number of weekday trips generated by the proposed project would be 16.4 percent less than the weekday trips associated with development of the site at the maximum development intensity permitted by the Riverside County General Plan land use designations.

5 Riverside County Integrated Project. Riverside County General Plan . Circulation Element Figure C-3. Revised: March 2001. 12-2063
5-31
The Interstate 10 freeway and the arterial street network within the study area have been designed to accommodate traffic demands upon buildout of the Riverside County General Plan and the surrounding local general plans. Although the Interstate 10 freeway is currently operating at LOS C during the peak hour, the traffic volume is projected to double by the year 2035. The updated route concept plan for Interstate 10 currently being developed by Caltrans, will identify an ultimate design for I-10 that accommodates development within the study area, including project site. The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan should not have a significant adverse impact on Interstate 10 in the year 2022 or in the year 2035. 12-2064
6-1

6.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The objective of this traffic analysis was to determine and disclose all significant impacts of the proposed project and identify the mitigation measures necessary to reduce the impacts to acceptable levels. The Section 24 Specific Plan EIS will contain a series of measures that reflect design features incorporated in the Specific Plan and measures that will be imposed on subsequent projects within the Specific Plan area via conditions of project approvals.

The recommendations below are intended to provide safe and efficient traffic movements to/from within and past the proposed Specific Plan development while minimizing potential impacts to through traffic on the adjacent arterials.

Acceptable levels of service are required after the completion of each phase of development as well as upon completion of the entire Specific Plan. Mitigation strategies have been identified that would respond best to the site-specific transportation needs of the project and the adjacent area.

Mitigation has been identified to address the impacts associated with the initial phase of development to facilitate the identification of equitable assessments to fund improvements. Recommended network improvements recognize that individual developments and increasing traffic volumes are part of the long-term growth projected for the study area.

Consequently, some improvements are necessary to address both site specific and area-wide mobility needs.

6.1 Thresholds of Significance
The minimum LOS performance standards vary by agency with jurisdiction over the transportation facility and remain a local decision. Caltrans has developed future right-of-way requirements for Interstate 10 in the study area to maintain LOS E during peak periods. The Congestion Management Plan also identifies LOS E as the minimum level of service standard for intersections and roadway segments within the CMP System of Highways and Roadways, including Ramon Road and Monterey Avenue.

The City of Rancho Mirage and the City of Cathedral City have identified Level of Service D as the minimum performance standard for the circulation network, based upon peak hour intersection operation. Both cities experience seasonal variations in traffic demand, which must be addressed in maintaining LOS D. For peak operating periods, LOS D and/or a maximum volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.90 is provisionally considered the generally acceptable service level by the City of Palm Desert, provided the target LOS “C” goal is only exceeded where maximum feasible intersection improvements have been implemented.

6.2 Traffic Impact Findings
Existing Baseline Conditions
All of the key intersections are currently providing acceptable levels of service in the peak hours of the peak season with the existing traffic controls and approach lane geometrics shown in Figure 6-1. P eak hour traffic volumes do not currently
warrant traffic control signals at the unsignalized key intersection of Los Alamos Road with Via Bella or the intersection of the Westin Resort Villas access with Dinah Shore Drive. The project site has adequate access for the land uses proposed.

Conditions With Initial Phase
As shown in Table 4-1, the initial phase of the proposed development would generate approximately 4,480 weekday trips of which 234 would occur during the morning peak hour and 289 would occur during the evening peak hour on weekdays.

Although site traffic generated by the initial phase of development would degrade the peak hour LOS at one intersection from LOS A to LOS B, this impact would not be significant. All of the key intersections and site access intersections would provide acceptable levels of service upon completion of the initial phase, provided the three site access intersections are improved as shown in Figure 6-2. No new traffic signals would be warranted or required by the initial phase of development.

The analysis of the initial phase assumed that access would be provided to the active adult community in the year 2022 via connections to two perimeter streets: (1) Los Alamos Road, opposite Via Bella, and (2) Dinah Shore Drive, opposite the Westin Mission Hills Access. Multiple access points to residential subdivisions are desirable to minimize circuitous travel, provide alternate access during roadway maintenance activities, and enhance emergency access. 12-2065
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
North
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 Westin Resort Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
1314151617
123456
789 10 11 12
FF
FF
FF
Figure 6-1
Existing Lane Geometrics
FF
Intersection NumberExclusive Right-Turn Lane
Signalized IntersectionThrough Lane
Stop Sign ControlExclusive Left-Turn Lane
Free-Flow Right-TurnRight/Left Lane
Right/Through/Left LaneThrough/Right Lane
Through/Left Lane
FF
1 Legend
12-2066
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
North
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 Westin Resort Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
1314151617
123456
789 10 11 12
FF
FF
FF
Figure 6-2
Minimum Lane Geometrics Required
for Initial Phase of Project
FF
Note: Bolded arrows in shaded approaches represent new traffic lanes.

Intersection NumberExclusive Right-Turn Lane
Signalized IntersectionThrough Lane
Stop Sign ControlExclusive Left-Turn Lane
Free-Flow Right-TurnRight/Left Lane
Right/Through/Left LaneThrough/Right Lane
Through/Left Lane
FF
1 Legend
12-2067
6-2
A third access to the active adult community is planned via the westerly extension of Casino Road, from Bob Hope Drive to Planning Area 8. Access to the active adult community via Casino Road is not required from a capacity perspective but would increase internal trip interactions between the residential land uses within Planning Area 8 and future developments within Planning Areas 1 through 7. The extension of Casino Road will not be constructed by Pulte Homes as part of the improvements associated with the development of the active adult community in the initial phase of development. The extension of Casino Road from Bob Hope Drive to Planning Area 8 may not occur until adjacent land within Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, and/or 5 is developed.

Existing Plus Project Buildout Conditions
Full development of the project site at the maximum intensity/density permitted would add 59,450 weekday trips to the surrounding street system. Of that total, approximately 2,965 trips would be inbound to the site and 2,874 trips would be outbound from the site during the evening peak hour on a typical weekday. Site traffic would cause the rural peak hour traffic signal warrants to be met at five intersections where site access is proposed including: two future intersections proposed on Ramon Road, two future intersections proposed on Bob Hope Drive, and one existing unsignalized intersection on Dinah Shore Drive, where a site access connection is proposed. All of these intersections would be signalized in conjunction with the proposed project. All of the key intersections are projected to provide acceptable levels of service in the peak hours on weekdays with existing plus project buildout traffic volumes, provided the proposed site access improvements and traffic control signals (shown in Figure 6-3) are constructed when necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed development. No improvements would be required for existing plus project buildout traffic volumes, other than those improvements proposed to facilitate site access.

Horizon Year 2035 Plus Project Buildout
Mitigation that would eliminate deficiencies in the peak hour traffic operations was identified for two off-site key intersections with horizon year 2035 plus project buildout traffic volumes, as shown in Figure 6-4. Improvements that would eliminate one of the deficiencies identified are funded and scheduled for completion by the City of Rancho Mirage in the year 2015. The other deficiency was identified at the intersection of Da Vall Drive and Ramon Road, where three corners are under the jurisdiction of the City of Cathedral City and one corner is under the jurisdiction of the City of Rancho Mirage. T he
improvement necessary to eliminate this deficiency would require the City of Cathedral City to obtain additional right-of-way on a corner where an existing development encroaches on the ultimate right-of-way of Da Vall Drive.

Da Vall Drive is classified as a four-lane divided roadway in the Riverside County General Plan as well as the General Plans of both the City of Rancho Mirage and the City of Cathedral City. With a second southbound left-turn lane on Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road the 95th-percentile back-of-queue length in each of the left-turn lanes is projected to extend twelve car lengths (300 feet) north of Ramon Road in the year 2035. This would require the acquisition of right-of-way in a developed area that appears to be functioning as an administrative area within the Desert Memorial Park Cemetery.

The additional southbound left-turn lane required on Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road would be consistent with the improvements typically required for a four-lane divided Minor Arterial roadway designated as a critical intersection in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. Therefore, the ultimate circulation system in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan would be adequate to serve project-related traffic upon buildout of the site.

CVAG distributes funds to help fund the construction of the regional system of roads, streets, and highways to accommodate growth in the region for transportation improvement projects within the Coachella Valley. These funds are associated with Measure A (sales tax), the TUMF program, and other state and federal sources. Transportation-related improvement projects partially funded by the TUMF program include: arterial street construction, street widening, intersection enhancements, and freeway interchange improvements. Regional transportation funds are meant to supplement, not replace local revenues and/or developer contributions required for approved regional road construction projects. CVAG members that participate in the TUMF and the Multiple Species program pay 25 percent of the cost of eligible regional transportation projects while CVAG pays 75 percent.

The widening of Da Vall Drive, between Ramon Road and Vista Chino, to its ultimate cross-section is included as an eligible buildable project (designated B-419) in the 2010 Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) and the CVAG Regional Arterial Program. It is ranked 88th of 247 buildable projects with a score of 9.3 points. The cost associated with the w idening of Da Vall Drive, between Ramon Road and Vista Chino, was estimated to be $24,025,032 in the 2010 TPPS. This cost 12-2068
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
North
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 2322
18 19
20 21
Westin Resort Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
Street “C” @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Retail Access
Los Alamos Road @
Residential Access
Bob Hope Drive @
Street “E”
Bob Hope Drive @
Street “D”
Street “D” @
Ramon Road
131415161718
1920212223
123456
789 10 11 12
FF
FF
FF
Figure 6-3
Minimum Lane Geometrics Required
for Existing+Project Buildout
Note: Bolded arrows in shaded approaches represent new traffic lanes.Note: Bolded arrows in shaded approaches represent new traffic lanes.

Intersection NumberExclusive Right-Turn Lane
Signalized IntersectionThrough Lane
Stop Sign ControlExclusive Left-Turn Lane
Free-Flow Right-TurnRight/Left Lane
Right/Through/Left LaneThrough/Right Lane
Proposed Traffic SignalThrough/Left Lane
FF
1 Legend
FF
12-2069
Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
ProjectSite
Casino
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Rio Del Sol
North
1 5
2 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
3 2322
18 19
20 21
Westin Resort Villas @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Westbound Ramps
Bob Hope Drive @
I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Da Vall Drive @
Ramon Road
Rattler Road @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive @
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive @
Casino
Los Alamos Road @
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills @
Dinah Shore Drive
I-10 Eastbound Ramp @
Ramon Road
Street “C” @
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road @
Retail Access
Los Alamos Road @
Residential Access
Bob Hope Drive @
Street “E”
Bob Hope Drive @
Street “D”
Street “D” @
Ramon Road
131415161718
1920212223
123456
789 10 11 12
FF
FF
FF
Figure 6-4
Minimum Lane Geometrics Required
for Year 2035 Plus Project Buildout
Note: Bolded arrows in shaded approaches represent new traffic lanes.Note: Bolded arrows in shaded approaches represent new traffic lanes.

Intersection NumberExclusive Right-Turn Lane
Signalized IntersectionThrough Lane
Stop Sign ControlExclusive Left-Turn Lane
Free-Flow Right-TurnRight/Left Lane
Right/Through/Left LaneThrough/Right Lane
Proposed Traffic SignalThrough/Left Lane
FF
1 Legend
FF
12-2070
6-3
reflects improvements to Da Vall Drive within project limits that extend substantially beyond the first 300 feet north of Ramon Road.

An improvement that represents a backbone level project (i.e., is integral to the continued and future development of an area) may be eligible for bonus points which can increase its priority ranking in the TPPS. Since Ramon Road is a TUMF facility, if the priority of the I-10 Da Vall Drive Interchange project increases in the future, the widening of Da Vall Drive, between Vista Chino and Ramon Road, may become a backbone level project. By participating in the TUMF program or contributing on a fair-share basis to roadway improvements of area-wide benefit, individual project proponents will mitigate the cumulative impact of their traffic on the future deficiency projected to occur at the intersection of Da Vall Drive and Ramon Road.

6.3 Site Access and Internal Circulation Findings
Street “C” at Ramon Road [Intersection 18]
The northbound left-turn queue on Street “C” at Ramon Road is projected to include 15 vehicles and extend 375 feet with a single left-turn lane. These vehicles on Street “C” will block access to Planning Area 1A and Planning Area 2A. The minimum distance to the first access connection to these Planning Areas should be determined by the length of the back-to- back left-turn lanes needed on Street “C”, south of Ramon Road. Providing northbound dual left-turn lanes on Street “C” at Ramon Road can reduce the northbound left-turn queue length to less than 175 feet. While not required to improve the level of service, consideration should be given to providing dual northbound left-turn lanes on Street “C” at Ramon Road to reduce the separation required between Ramon Road and the first internal street access for the adjacent planning areas.

Street “D” at Ramon Road [Intersection 19]
The proposed improvements for Street “D” are shown in Figure 12 of the Section 24 Specific Plan, where Street “D” is referred to as “A” Street Boulevard. It is recommended that dual left-turn lanes be provided on the westbound and northbound approaches at the intersection of Street “D” and Ramon Road. While not required to achieve acceptable levels of service, dual left-turn lanes would substantially benefit the project by improving access to Planning Areas 2 and 3.

This intersection will serve the second highest volume of site traffic. During the peak hour, both the northbound and the westbound left-turn volumes at this intersection are projected to exceed 300 vehicles per h our upon project buildout.

Although not required at this intersection to achieve LOS D (as shown in Table 5-10 and Figure 6-4) dual left-turn lanes are typically provided where left-turn volumes exceed 300 vehicles per hour. The proposed four-lane cross-section of Street “D” would provide the two southbound departure lanes required with dual westbound left-turn lanes.

In addition to improving the overall intersection LOS, dual left-turn lanes would reduce the length of the left-turn queue of vehicles that forms each signal cycle by approximately 50 percent. This is important on Ramon Road, where the median will have to accommodate back-to-back left-turn lanes with sufficient space to store the left-turning vehicles that will accumulate each signal cycle.

The northbound left-turn queue on Street “D” at Ramon Road is projected to include 23 vehicles and extend 575 feet with a single left-turn lane. These vehicles on Street “D” will block access to Planning Area 2A and Planning Area 3. The minimum distance to the first access connection to these Planning Areas should be determined by the length of the back-to-back left- turn lanes needed on Street “D”, south of Ramon Road. Providing northbound dual left-turn lanes on Street “D” at Ramon Road can reduce the northbound left-turn queue length to less than 300 feet.

All signalized intersections should provide at least two approach lanes on each approach. If a single northbound left-turn lane is provided on Street “D”, a dedicated northbound right-turn lane should be provided as the second approach lane.

Even if dual northbound right-turn lanes are provided, a dedicated northbound right-turn lane would be required to allow a right-turn on red movement to accommodate the right-turn volume (191 vehicles per hour) on Street “D” at Ramon Road.

Casino West of Bob Hope Drive [Intersection 9]
The eastbound approach on Casino at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive should provide a through lane and a dedicated right-turn lane to accommodate the projected right-turn volume during the peak hour (in excess of 300 vehicles per hour) at LOS D. A single shared through/right lane would result in the approach operating at LOS F upon project completion. Dual 12-2071
6-4
eastbound left-turn lanes would be required on Casino at Bob Hope Drive to achieve acceptable levels of service during the peak hours. The dual eastbound left-turn lanes required on Casino are projected to have vehicles waiting to turn left onto Bob Hope Drive extending 300 to 400 feet in each left-turn lane. This queue length will increase the minimum setback necessary between Bob Hope Drive and the first access connection on Casino for Planning Area 3 and Planning Area 4.

In view of the projected volumes on Casino, between Bob Hope Drive and Street “D”, this roadway should be constructed as a four-lane divided facility. A nontraversable landscape median would enhance traffic safety and control access to the adjacent planning areas. The first planning area access on Casino should be located approximately 660 feet west of Bob Hope Drive to accommodate back-to-back left-turn lanes between Bob Hope Drive and the left-turn access for Planning Area

4. This setback would also apply to the first access connection to Planning Area 3 that would permit southbound left-turns across Casino. The number of lanes required on Casino, west of Street “D”, cannot be determined without additional information regarding access to/from Planning Area 2B and Planning Area 5.

Street “D” at Bob Hope Drive [Intersection 20]
Site traffic will warrant signalization in conjunction with adjacent development at the intersection of Street ”D” and Bob Hope Drive. As shown in Figure 6-4, a single eastbound left-turn lane and right-turn lane would provide acceptable levels of service. A northbound left-turn lane would be required on Bob Hope Drive with 350 feet of queue storage length. The eastbound approach would require 375 feet of left-turn storage with a single left-turn lane.

With a single left-turn lane, the eastbound left-turn queue on Street “D” at Bob Hope Drive is projected to include 14 vehicles and extend 350 feet. This 350-foot long queue of vehicles on Street “D” could block access to Planning Area 4 and Planning Area 6A. The minimum distance to the first access connection to these Planning Areas should be determined by the length of the back-to-back left-turn lanes needed on Street “D”, west of Bob Hope Drive. Providing eastbound dual left-turn lanes on Street “D” at Bob Hope Drive can reduce the eastbound left-turn queue length to less than 175 feet. While not required to improve the level of service, consideration should be given to providing dual eastbound left-turn l anes on Street “D” at Bob Hope Drive to reduce the separation required between Bob Hope Drive and the first internal street access for the adjacent planning areas.

Street “E” at Bob Hope Drive [Intersection 21]
Site traffic will warrant signalization in conjunction with adjacent development at the intersection of Street ”E” and Bob Hope Drive. As shown in Figure 6-4, a single eastbound left-turn lane and right-turn lane would provide acceptable levels of service. A northbound left-turn lane would be required on Bob Hope Drive with 225 feet of queue storage length. The eastbound approach would require 250 feet of left-turn storage with a single left-turn lane.

Street “D” at Casino
Assuming both Street “D” and Casino are four lane roadways where they intersect, this internal intersection is not projected to meet signal warrants upon project buildout. Street “D” (designated Street “A” Boulevard in the Specific Plan) and Casino will function as the two principal internal vehicular circulation facilities within Specific Plan 24. Street “D” lies adjacent to four of the commercial parcels and three of the multi-family parcels. This internal multi-modal corridor would extend from its signalized intersection with Ramon Road to its signalized intersection with Bob Hope Drive. Street “D” would connect the commercial and multi-family residential parcels located in the eastern portion of Section 24 west of Bob Hope Drive with the commercial and multi-family residential parcels located in the northern portion of Section 24 south of Ramon Road.

Street “D” would provide a two travel lanes in each direction, separated by a raised landscape median 16 feet in width within a 110-foot right-of-way. Street “D” would be accessible to automobiles, service vehicles, emergency vehicles, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), golf carts, and neighborhood circulator vehicles. A 5-foot wide sidewalk and a Class II striped on- street 5-foot wide bicycle lane would be provided on both sides of Street “D”. A two-foot buffer would be provided between the on-street bike lane and the adjacent outer travel lane on Street “D”.

Ultimately, Casino will be extended west of Bob Hope Drive to connect the active adult residential community in Planning Area 8 with the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa located east of Bob Hope Drive. Casino will be extended between and provide access to the future Retail development proposed within Planning Area 3 and the future Resort development proposed in Planning Area 4. With three non-residential Planning Areas to t he northwest and three more to the south, the existing intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Casino will become the most centralized site access intersection for non- residential trips.
12-2072
6-5
The ultimate traffic volumes through the intersection of Street “D” and Casino will be largely the result of external residential site access trips and internal trips between the commercial parcels and between the commercial and residential parcels.

The magnitude of these traffic volumes will depend upon the strength of the interaction between the various land uses and the locations of the internal access points along Street “D”.

Preliminary estimates of the potential traffic volumes for the intersection of Street “D” at Casino indicate that it is unlikely for this intersection to meet traffic signal warrants upon project buildout, since Street “D” would be a four-lane roadway and Casino will require at least two approach lanes at the intersection of Street “D”. At the present level of site planning, it appears that the intersection of Street “D” and Casino should be unsignalized (TWSC, AWSC, or roundabout). The appropriate traffic control type should be reviewed at a future time, when more detailed development plans are available.

6.4 Standard Mitigation for Individual Development Projects

1. The property owners shall dedicate appropriate right-of-way to accommodate the ultimate improvement of the abutting General Plan roadways and fully improve those roadways in conjunction with adjacent development.

2. To ensure compliance with applicable roadway and access design standards when individual development projects are processed, their final layout and site access design may be subject to review and approval and a focused traffic impact study may be required to evaluate site-specific access and circulation issues as well as the timing of required improvements. Entry drives, the internal circulation design, and other features may require additional street widths. A traffic signing and striping plan may be required for review and approval in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site.

3. To ensure that motorists can enter and exit the site with minimum hazard and disruption of “through” traffic, clear unobstructed sight distances shall be provided at all site access points as well as at all internal intersections.

When individual development projects are processed, sight distances shall be reviewed at the project access points (based upon AASHTO sight distance standards) when final grading, landscape and street improvement plans are prepared.

4. Clear sight triangles shall be provided and maintained at each of the proposed site access intersections.

5. Individual project proponents shall comply with applicable requirements in the Section 24 Specific Plan and construct the future combination sidewalk/bikeway/golf cart paths (with a minimum eight-foot width) along Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, and Los Alamos Road, as shown in the City of Rancho Mirage G eneral
Plan.

6. Individual project proponents shall provide sufficient off-street parking shall be provided on-site as detailed in the Section 24 Specific Plan (Table 8) to meet the requirements of the applicable jurisdiction and the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards.

7. Individual project proponents shall coordinate with the SunLine Transit Agency regarding the need for public transit facilities on and adjacent to the project site. At bus stops, the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines require a minimum paved area depth of 8 feet.

8. Individual project proponents shall pay development impact fees and/or participate in a traffic mitigation fee program developed to ensure that a fair-share contribution is made to future roadway infrastructure improvements of benefit to all developments within the Section 24 Specific Plan.

9. Individual project proponents may be required to contribute a traffic mitigation fee to ensure that a fair-share contribution is made to future roadway infrastructure improvements of area-wide benefit prior to the issuance of building permits, equivalent to the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee.

10. A series of utility poles are located close to the curb along the north side of Dinah Shore Drive. Undergrounding these transmission lines is desirable from a traffic safety and aesthetic perspective. The proponents of individual developments adjacent to Dinah Shore Drive shall coordinate with the utility company to proactively address potential strategies to reduce risks posed by the utility poles. The proponents of individual developments within the Section 24 Specific Plan may be required to contribute Development Impact Fees, as outlined in the City of 12-2073
6-6
Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 3.29.130, which provides a mechanism for funding the undergrounding of utility facilities including electrical transmission lines.

6.5 Roadway Improvements Needed
The streets within the initial phase of development shall be constructed and maintained as private streets, as shown in the Section 24 Specific Plan. The Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends that private streets be developed in accordance with the same guidelines established for public neighborhood streets. The City of Rancho Mirage typically requires private streets to provide a 37-foot minimum right-of-way. Figure 15 within the Section 24 Specific Plan illustrates the improvements proposed for local interior roadways with a 37-foot right-of way within the active adult community. These improvements include one travel lane in each direction, an on-street parking lane, and a five-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the curb along one side of the roadway.

Initial Phase Improvements

1. The developer of the initial phase shall provide, at a minimum, the lane geometrics shown in Figure 6-2 at the site access points in conjunction with the development of the initial phase. - A “STOP” sign shall be installed facing westbound vehicles at the site access proposed on Los Alamos Road, opposite Via Bella [Intersection 8] and a northbound and southbound left-turn bay shall be provided in the median on Los Alamos Road at the intersection of Via Bella. - The existing traffic control signal and approach lane geometrics shall be modified at the intersection of the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort Access with Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12] to provide access to the initial phase of development. Two southbound exit lanes shall be provided, including a dedicated right-turn lane and a shared through/left lane. Two northbound entry lanes shall be provided to permit residents to enter while a visitor is awaiting authorization for entry.

2. Adequate stacking distance (100 feet) shall be provided on the approach to each of the three proposed gated entries to store vehicles entering the initial phase. The pavement in advance of the gate shall be wide enough to allow non-accepted vehicles to turn around in advance of the gate. Any gated entry that allows visitor access should provide two entry lanes to allow residents to bypass the vehicles of visitors awaiting entry authorization.

3. The controlled primary entryways to the initial phase of development may be required to include provisions to facilitate access by emergency vehicles. If required, all power-operated controlled access devices shall have a radio-controlled override system capable of opening the gate or barrier when activated by a special transmitter l
ocated in emergency vehicles and be equipped to facilitate opening in the event of a power failure.

4. An adequate supply of off-street parking in appropriate locations is an essential component of a balanced neighborhood and should be provided within the initial phase to meet the needs of residents and visitors. Regular use of on-street parking should be expected and accommodated because visitor parking will be heavy at times.

Project Buildout Improvements

1. The minimum required site access improvements shown in Figure 6-4, including the intersection approach lane geometrics, “STOP “ signs, and new traffic control signals, should be provided when necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development of the Section 24 Specific Plan.

2. Traffic signals will be warranted and shall be installed when warranted along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive at the following five site access intersections to maintain acceptable levels of service in conjunction with adjacent development:
• The Westin Resort Villas @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13], • Street “C” @ Ramon Road [Intersection 18],
• Street “D” @ Ramon Road [Intersection 19],
• Bob Hope Drive @ Street “D” [Intersection 20], and
• Bob Hope Drive @ Street “E” [Intersection 21].
12-2074
6-7

3. Each of the proposed full-turn site access intersections that will be signalized shall provide a minimum of two approach lanes on the minor-street approaches to minimize the disruption of through traffic on the major street.

4. The locations of the proposed right-in/right-out site access points shall provide adequate stopping sight distance, and intersection sight distance as well as corner clearance (to avoid conflicts between driveway traffic and vehicles stacking or turning at adjacent roadway intersections). Corner clearance will be particularly important where the queue lengths in the through lanes on Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive may extend more than 600 feet (i.e., Access “C” and Access “F” as shown in Figure 4-3).

5. Clear unobstructed sight distances shall be provided at the site access points on Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive as well as at all internal intersections to ensure that motorists can enter, exit, and traverse the site safely with minimal disruption to through traffic on the abutting arterial roadways. The intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Street “E” [Intersection 21] and the right-turn only access intersection proposed on Bob Hope Drive, immediately north of Intersection 21, are located on the inside of a horizontal curve that may limit both stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance.

6. While not required to achieve acceptable levels of service, careful consideration should be given to the provision of a right-turn deceleration lane at those site access intersections along Bob Hope Drive, Ramon Road, and Dinah Shore Drive where 40 or more vehicles are projected to turn right into the site during the peak hour.

7. The minimum standard for access spacing is frequently the same as for stopping sight distance. The site access spacing along Los Alamos Road, between Via Bella and Ramon Road, should reflect the minimum stopping sight distance, based on the future speed limit on Los Alamos Road, which is expected to be lower than the current design speed.
12-2075
Appendices

1. Traffic Count Locations and Data

2. RIVTAM TAZ Map, Modifications, and Socioeconomic Data

3. HCM Intersection Analysis Methodology and Worksheets

4. Traffic Signal Warrants

5. List of Acronyms and Traffic Glossary

6. City of Rancho Mirage Review Comments and Responses
12-2076
Appendix 1

TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS
24-HOUR MACHINE COUNT DATA

PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
12-2077
Endo Engineering Scale: 1” = 3,800’
City of Palm Desert
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner RoadInterstate 10Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.

Vista Chino
Da Vall Dr.

Date Palm Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
Frank Sinatra Dr.

Project
Site
Thousand Palms
City of Cathedral City
City of Rancho Mirage
Cathedral City
High School
Figure 1
Traffic Count Locations
(November 6, 2013)
City of Palm Desert
RanchoMirageHighSchool
Legend
Peak Hour Intersection Count
24-Hour Directional Count
Pedestrian Crossing Count
Casino
The WestinResort Villas
WestinMission
Hills
ViaBella
Rattler Road
Key Largo Ave.
12-2078
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

City of Rancho Mirage
Bob Hope Drive
N/ Ramon Road
24 Hour Directional Volume Counts

RNM001
Site Code: 009-13453
Date Start: 06-Nov-13
Date End: 06-Nov-13