Rancho Mirage City Council
October 19, 2023

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
.

Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varn
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30 t
h

A
v
e
.

Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
Ca
s
i
n
o
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
Vi
a
Be
l
l
a
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Ri
o

D
e
l

S
o
l
No
r
t
h
Le
g
e
n
d
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
/
E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r

T
u
r
n
i
n
g

V
o
l
u
m
e
5/
8 1
5 2
4 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 3
We
s
t
i
n

R
e
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Ke
y

L
a
r
g
o

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ca
s
i
n
o
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Vi
a

B
e
l
l
a
We
s
t
i
n

M
i
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Fi
g
u
r
e

4 -
8 Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

P
l
u
s

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

B
u
i
l
d
o
u
t
We
e
k
d
a
y

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

V
o
l
u
m
e
s
47 0
/
4 6
2 66
/
1 0
4 29
2 /
5 0
4 62
9 /
9 9
8 18
/
3 5
53 1
/
1 0
6 8
36 /
3 0
34/22
0/0
16/11
11 /
3 3
63 6
/
9 0
4 28
/
1 5
22/56
0/0
7/43
25 /
1 7
0/
0 6/
4 14/26
110/173
12/11
11 /
1 2
0/
0 15
/
1 6
3/7
95/195
11/24
15 /
2 7
6/
2 6
7/
3 5
72/111
1039/942
83/355
12 1
/
4 4
2 4/
2 7
82 /
3 2
1 6/34
397/1299
84/384
31 /
1 1
1 47
9 /
9 2
9 83
/
1 0
7 60/51
331/301
235/114
10 6
/
8 1
57 8
/
8 3
8 17
2 /
1 3
9 79/106
169/411
107/180
23 /
8 3
53 1
/
1 0
5 5
48/56
100/143
77 /
1 5
7 61
0 /
8 4
0 11
/
5 8
56 3
/
1 0
3 4
16 /
3 6
28/135
0/0
26/83
40 /
1 9
4 64
0 /
7 8
8 7/
4 18/27
0/0
3/8
12 3
/
5 0
0 41
3 /
7 0
9 10
0 /
1 1
0 179/403
872/751
55/97
74 /
1 0
1 43
5 /
6 4
7 16
3 /
1 6
0 61/182
284/1010
119/266
59 5
/
1 3
2 0
57 /
2 7
U
T
u
r
n
s

0 /
4 63
1 /
1 2
0 8
20 /
1 1
32/46
7/1
25 9
/
4 6
6 18
1 /
4 5
6 38
/
3 5
369/260
1299/773
467/607 32
1 /
8 0
3 26
4 /
4 0
0 18
8 /
5 7
5 17/24
434/1116
168/598
68 /
1 3
4 39
1 /
4 0
2 17
1 /
8 8
74/138
846/761
90/131
12 4
/
2 1
5 39
3 /
4 5
9 13
3 /
9 7
24/80
314/999
62/153
18 9
/
1 4
0 9/
4 59
7 /
1 0
2 9
237/356
156/250
374/320
208/799
12 /
2 0
34 4
/
3 4
5 11
5 /
1 1
6 34/62
825/975
478/842 11
2 /
2 8
6 72
7 /
9 4
9 23
7 /
3 1
2 159/511
242/816
116/389
91/138
751/1290 25
5 /
1 2
4 6/
5 59
8 /
6 8
2 39/102
323/982
11 8
/
3 4
1 60
9 /
1 1
2 6
18 7
/
2 0
8 243/217
282/119
47/23
24 /
3 7
71 0
/
1 1
0 4
13 3
/
7 6
112/179
117/270
77/148
12 1
/
1 0
1 79
3 /
1 4
9 7
144/108
210/162 16
3 /
1 3
9 90
7 /
1 4
7 1
89 3
/
1 5
0 0
92 /
1 4
3 10
0 1
/
1 3
5 4
70 /
1 6
0 82/151
70/168
13 14
15 16
17 71
2 3
4 5
6 8
9 10
11 12
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: household 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/PDP07012c 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

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
.

Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varn
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30 t
h

A
v
e
.

Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
Ca
s
i
n
o
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
Vi
a
Be
l
l
a
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Ri
o

D
e
l

S
o
l
No
r
t
h
Le
g
e
n
d
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
/
E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r

T
u
r
n
i
n
g

V
o
l
u
m
e
5/
8 1
5 2
4 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 3
We
s
t
i
n

R
e
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Ke
y

L
a
r
g
o

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ca
s
i
n
o
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Vi
a

B
e
l
l
a
We
s
t
i
n

M
i
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
13 14
15 16
17 71
2 3
4 5
6 8
9 10
11 12
Fi
g
u
r
e

4 -
9 Th
r
o
u
g
h

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

V
o
l
u
m
e
s
Ye
a
r

2 0
2 2
53 3
/
4 4
4 77
/
1 2
1 32
3 /
4 9
7 63
8 /
6 3
8 0/
0 56
2 /
1 0
0 6
38 /
3 3
3/
2 2
68 6
/
8 1
2 31
/
1 6
24/60
0/0
8/46
0/0
131/54
14/13
13 /
1 4
0/
0 18
/
2 0
0/0
106/93
13/30
16 /
3 0
0/
0 8/
4 0
79/122
1233/631
0/0
7/39
414/1249
0/0
34 /
1 2
2 44
9 /
7 5
7 76
/
5 6
67/55
356/220
251/124
11 4
/
9 0
56 7
/
6 4
8 19
0 /
1 5
3 75/51
167/346
118/198
19 /
7 5
56 8
/
1 0
4 8
57/35
88/35
66 /
4 5
67 0
/
7 8
3 55
1 /
9 2
8 16
/
3 7
0/
0 63
2 /
7 9
4 8/
4 19/28
3/9
73 /
2 4
9 42
9 /
6 7
8 12
1 /
1 3
5 145/129
1013/502
54/76
74 /
8 2
44 6
/
6 1
8 15
9 /
1 3
7 74/223
260/828
116/247
65 2
/
1 1
6 6
64 /
3 1
U
T
u
r
n
s

0 /
1 2
68 7
/
1 0
3 9
22 /
1 2
36/52
8/1
27 1
/
4 8
6 16
6 /
3 6
3 40
/
3 7
385/271
1373/814
482/555 32
1 /
7 6
9 25
5 /
3 0
8 15
0 /
4 0
9 18/25
459/1176
133/429
64 /
7 0
49 6
/
5 1
2 20
1 /
1 0
4 79/72
855/557
98/91
13 5
/
1 9
4 49
8 /
5 8
4 15
4 /
1 1
2 28/94
279/806
71/177
25 2
/
1 8
7 12
/
5 64
6 /
6 6
5 313/421
203/326
504/370
144/496
15 /
2 6
43 1
/
4 0
5 12
3 /
7 0
43/80
866/443
542/604 11
2 /
1 3
6 87
4 /
9 0
5 27
5 /
2 2
7 93/235
190/600
114/329
120/176
876/957 32
1 /
1 5
3 7/
6 62
4 /
3 0
7 35/59
298/693
13 4
/
3 1
5 69
0 /
9 8
0 22
2 /
1 3
1 301/150
350/146
62/30
32 /
4 8
84 8
/
9 5
7 16
3 /
9 1
115/99
146/335
112/199
14 0
/
1 4
5 91
7 /
1 2
2 8
193/135
280/209 19
9 /
2 0
2 10
9 2
/
1 1
6 6
10 9
4 /
1 4
1 4
10 2
/
4 4
12 5
8 /
1 1
9 4
51 /
2 0
84/55
18/60
0/
0 0/
0 0/
0 0/0
0/0
0/0
0/
0 0/
0 0/
0 12-2025

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
.

Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varn
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30 t
h

A
v
e
.

Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
Ca
s
i
n
o
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
Vi
a
Be
l
l
a
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Ri
o

D
e
l

S
o
l
No
r
t
h
Le
g
e
n
d
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
/
E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r

T
u
r
n
i
n
g

V
o
l
u
m
e
5/
8 1
5 2
4 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 3
23 22
18 19
20 21
We
s
t
i
n

R
e
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Ke
y

L
a
r
g
o

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ca
s
i
n
o
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Vi
a

B
e
l
l
a
We
s
t
i
n

M
i
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t

“
C
”

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Re
t
a
i
l

A
c
c
e
s
s
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

A
c
c
e
s
s
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
St
r
e
e
t

“
E
”
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
St
r
e
e
t

“
D
”
St
r
e
e
t

“
D
”

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
13 14
15 16
17 18
7 19
20 21
22 23
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 9
10 11
12 Fi
g
u
r
e

4 -
1 0
Th
r
o
u
g
h

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

V
o
l
u
m
e
s
Ye
a
r

2 0
3 5
56 7
/
4 7
0 77
/
1 2
0 34
1 /
5 2
7 59
9 /
6 0
3 0/
0 58
7 /
1 0
4 8
41 /
3 5
0/0
0/0
0/0
5/
3 0
71 5
/
8 4
6 33
/
1 7
25/63
0/0
8/49
0/
0 0/
0 0/
0 0/0
175/74
16/15
14 /
1 7
0/
0 20
/
2 3
0/0
142/128
14/35
17 /
3 1
0/
0 10
/
4 6
83/127
1114/574
0/0
0/
0 0/
0 0/
0 8/45
356/1077
0/0
34 /
1 2
2 45
6 /
7 7
0 76
/
5 6
67/54
366/226
256/125
11 6
/
9 0
57 5
/
6 5
9 20
0 /
1 6
2 75/51
170/356
125/210
20 /
8 4
59 4
/
1 0
9 6
63/39
96/38
72 /
4 9
69 9
/
8 1
9 0/
0 58
0 /
9 7
6 17
/
3 9
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/
0 66
3 /
8 3
6 8/
5 20/30
0/0
3/9
12 3
2 /
1 5
0 5
0/
0 14
5 2
/
1 4
6 8
0/
0 0/0
0/0
69 /
2 4
0 45
3 /
7 1
3 11
7 /
1 3
0 138/122
956/468
58/81
79 /
8 7
46 9
/
6 5
0 15
9 /
1 3
7 72/214
243/774
117/248
14 8
/
1 6
6 73
9 /
1 3
1 0
73 /
3 5
97/194
2/2
30/59
45 /
5 1
77 5
/
1 1
6 9
25 /
1 3
41/59
2/2
9/1
28 5
/
5 1
3 16
7 /
3 6
8 42
/
3 8
405/286
1429/850
491/567 32
7 /
7 8
8 25
5 /
3 1
2 14
6 /
4 0
8 18/27
477/1228
129/426
67 /
7 3
68 4
/
7 1
3 22
3 /
1 1
6 82/76
840/547
105/98
14 4
/
2 0
8 68
8 /
8 1
3 16
9 /
1 2
3 32/105
271/792
79/196
30 1
/
2 3
2 11
/
5 69
3 /
7 2
7 440/621
214/352
709/547
135/494
15 /
2 6
47 6
/
4 4
6 12
0 /
6 8
44/82
818/419
571/626 11
0 /
1 3
9 94
6 /
9 8
8 25
8 /
2 1
3 90/229
180/567
103/311
141/202
952/1003 33
6 /
1 5
8 8/
6 60
5 /
2 9
1 34/59
320/738
17 2
/
4 1
1 80
9 /
1 1
7 6
25 3
/
1 4
9 392/190
425/177
78/38
40 /
6 0
10 0
3 /
1 1
0 9
18 8
/
1 0
5 134/106
175/405
111/208
14 8
/
1 4
4 11
3 3
/
1 4
9 3
193/135
280/209 20
9 /
2 0
2 13
5 5
/
1 4
1 7
12 8
1 /
1 6
3 6
11 9
/
5 1
14 5
5 /
1 3
8 8
59 /
2 3
98/64
20/70
12 4
7 /
1 5
2 4
0/
0 14
7 0
/
1 4
8 6
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 the 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

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
.

Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varn
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30 t
h

A
v
e
.

Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
Ca
s
i
n
o
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
Vi
a
Be
l
l
a
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Ri
o

D
e
l

S
o
l
No
r
t
h
Le
g
e
n
d
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
/
E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r

T
u
r
n
i
n
g

V
o
l
u
m
e
5/
8 1
5 2
4 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 3
We
s
t
i
n

R
e
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Ke
y

L
a
r
g
o

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ca
s
i
n
o
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Vi
a

B
e
l
l
a
We
s
t
i
n

M
i
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
13 14
15 16
17 71
2 3
4 5
6 8
9 10
11 12
Fi
g
u
r
e

4 -
1 1
To
t
a
l

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

V
o
l
u
m
e
s
Ye
a
r

2 0
2 2

W
i
t
h

I
n
i
t
i
a
l

P
h
a
s
e
53 5
/
4 4
8 77
/
1 2
1 32
6 /
4 9
9 65
6 /
6 5
2 36
/
7 7
56 2
/
1 0
0 6
38 /
3 3
14 /
4 5
68 6
/
8 1
2 31
/
1 6
24/60
0/0
8/46
31/67
133/59
14/13
13 /
1 4
0/
0 18
/
2 0
4/9
111/96
13/30
16 /
3 0
0/
0 8/
4 0
79/122
1240/645
0/0
7/39
426/1258
0/0
37 /
1 2
4 46
1 /
7 6
6 84
/
6 2
69/59
356/220
251/124
11 4
/
9 0
57 4
/
6 6
2 19
0 /
1 5
3 79/60
167/346
118/198
24 /
7 8
58 3
/
1 0
5 9
59/40
96/41
70 /
5 4
67 8
/
8 0
1 58
7 /
1 0
0 5
16 /
3 7
0/
0 69
9 /
8 4
3 8/
4 19/28
3/9
73 /
2 4
9 44
5 /
7 1
3 12
1 /
1 3
5 145/129
1013/502
61/90
86 /
9 1
47 7
/
6 4
0 18
3 /
1 5
5 74/223
260/828
129/275
66 8
/
1 2
0 1
64 /
3 1
U
T
u
r
n
s

0 /
1 2
71 7
/
1 0
6 2
22 /
1 2
36/52
8/1
27 1
/
4 8
6 17
1 /
3 7
3 40
/
3 7
385/271
1373/814
485/563 32
8 /
7 7
4 26
4 /
3 1
4 16
5 /
4 2
0 18/25
459/1176
141/447
64 /
7 0
49 6
/
5 1
2 20
1 /
1 0
4 79/72
879/575
98/91
13 5
/
1 9
4 49
8 /
5 8
4 15
4 /
1 1
2 28/94
292/834
71/177
25 2
/
1 8
7 12
/
5 65
7 /
6 8
8 314/423
203/326
506/371
159/507
15 /
2 6
43 2
/
4 0
7 12
4 /
7 2
43/80
872/455
556/634 12
4 /
1 4
5 88
9 /
9 1
6 27
5 /
2 2
7 99/239
196/604
114/329
120/176
888/982 32
1 /
1 5
3 7/
6 63
2 /
3 2
5 37/60
315/706
13 7
/
3 1
7 72
2 /
1 0
0 4
22 2
/
1 3
1 303/154
351/148
62/30
32 /
4 8
86 6
/
9 9
4 16
4 /
9 3
115/99
148/336
114/200
14 0
/
1 4
5 95
2 /
1 2
5 4
193/135
280/209 19
9 /
2 0
2 11
1 1
/
1 2
0 6
10 9
4 /
1 4
1 4
11 7
/
7 6
12 5
8 /
1 1
9 4
70 /
6 1
111/75
53/86
57 /
4 3
0/
0 8/
6 67/49
0/0
20/15
0/
0 0/
0 0/
0 12-2028

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
.

Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varn
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30 t
h

A
v
e
.

Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
Ca
s
i
n
o
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
Vi
a
Be
l
l
a
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Ri
o

D
e
l

S
o
l
No
r
t
h
Le
g
e
n
d
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
/
E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r

T
u
r
n
i
n
g

V
o
l
u
m
e
5/
8 1
5 2
4 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 3
23 22
18 19
20 21
We
s
t
i
n

R
e
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Ke
y

L
a
r
g
o

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ca
s
i
n
o
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Vi
a

B
e
l
l
a
We
s
t
i
n

M
i
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t

“
C
”

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Re
t
a
i
l

A
c
c
e
s
s
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

A
c
c
e
s
s
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
St
r
e
e
t

“
E
”
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
St
r
e
e
t

“
D
”
St
r
e
e
t

“
D
”

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
13 14
15 16
17 18
7 19
20 21
22 23
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 9
10 11
12 Fi
g
u
r
e

4 -
1 2
To
t
a
l

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

V
o
l
u
m
e
s
Ye
a
r

2 0
3 5
58 7
/
5 5
8 77
/
1 2
0 36
2 /
6 1
2 71
7 /
1 0
8 6
18 /
3 5
63 1
/
1 2
4 3
41 /
3 5
34/22
0/0
16/11
14 /
4 7
75 8
/
1 0
4 5
33 /
1 7
25/63
0/0
8/49
25 /
1 7
0/
0 6/
4 14/26
213/220
16/15
14 /
1 7
0/
0 20
/
2 3
3/7
178/276
14/35
17 /
3 1
6/
2 6
10 /
4 6
83/127
1223/1047
83/355
12 1
/
4 4
2 4/
2 7
82 /
3 2
1 8/45
444/1440
84/384
36 /
1 2
4 52
1 /
1 0
0 2
95 /
1 1
6 68/57
383/334
259/126
11 7
/
9 2
63 1
/
9 0
1 20
0 /
1 6
2 91/114
193/462
125/210
30 /
1 1
4 64
4 /
1 2
7 2
71/71
132/156
10 1
/
1 7
3 74
3 /
1 0
0 3
11 /
5 8
61 6
/
1 1
2 3
17 /
3 9
28/135
0/0
26/83
40 /
1 9
4 70
0 /
8 6
4 8/
5 20/30
0/0
3/9
13 1
8 /
1 8
6 5
47 /
2 2
7 15
5 6
/
1 9
3 9
25 /
1 2
7 26/120
50/256
14 1
/
5 6
0 48
1 /
8 1
6 11
7 /
1 3
0 214/434
1043/835
66/112
88 /
1 1
7 50
5 /
7 4
5 17
9 /
1 7
4 72/214
327/1149
131/291
14 8
/
1 6
6 83
9 /
1 7
3 3
73 /
3 5
97/194
2/2
30/59
45 /
5 1
88 7
/
1 5
7 7
25 /
1 3
41/59
2/2
9/1
28 5
/
5 1
3 19
6 /
4 8
9 42
/
3 8
405/286
1429/850
512/658 35
1 /
8 7
5 28
7 /
4 2
8 20
2 /
6 1
2 18/27
477/1228
179/637
84 /
1 5
1 68
4 /
7 1
3 22
3 /
1 1
6 93/156
929/817
112/152
15 5
/
2 6
0 68
8 /
8 1
3 16
9 /
1 2
3 32/105
340/1079
79/196
30 1
/
2 3
2 11
/
5 81
9 /
1 2
8 0
453/679
214/352
723/604
238/920
15 /
2 6
48 3
/
4 7
6 13
3 /
1 2
6 44/82
964/1046
663/1046 14
7 /
3 3
2 10
0 3
/
1 2
4 0
29 0
/
3 5
6 172/546
273/913
137/453
141/202
1091/1614 33
6 /
1 5
8 8/
6 70
4 /
7 2
7 48/116
437/1220
19 4
/
5 2
2 92
8 /
1 5
8 6
27 3
/
2 5
8 417/301
426/178
78/38
40 /
6 0
11 0
5 /
1 5
3 8
18 9
/
1 0
6 158//215
176/406
112/209
15 6
/
1 4
7 12
9 4
/
2 1
2 4
195/142
280/209 20
9 /
2 0
2 15
0 6
/
2 0
6 6
13 9
1 /
2 1
3 8
14 5
/
1 6
6 15
6 7
/
1 8
9 6
99 /
1 7
1 125/179
79/202
13 1
2 /
1 7
8 6
68 /
3 3
0 15
5 3
/
1 8
8 1
40 /
1 9
9 50/191
69/325
1275/1173
32/156
55 /
2 5
7 41
/
1 7
6 500/1668
48/233
1412/1304
17/87
35 /
1 6
3 23
/
8 2
555/1863
34/165
18 /
8 8/
3 4/16
254/256
2/7
200/313
16 /
1 1
8 6/
3 8
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, the 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 Riverside 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) indicates 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 County 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 Ta
b
l
e

5 -
2 Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

W
e
e
k
d
a
y

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

D
e
l
a
y

a
n
d

L
e
v
e
l
s

o
f

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
A
t

t
h
e

U
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d

K
e
y

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

W
i
t
h

a
n
d

W
i
t
h
o
u
t

t
h
e

I
n
i
t
i
a
l

P
h
a
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

W
i
t
h
o
u
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

P
l
u
s

I
n
i
t
i
a
l

P
h
a
s
e
Ch
a
n
g
e

I
n
Un
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
[I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

N
u
m
b
e
r
]
Ma
j
o
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
Le
f
t

T
u
r
n
b
Mi
n
o
r
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
c
Ma
j
o
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
Le
f
t

T
u
r
n
b
M
i
n
o
r
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
c

Mi
n
o
r
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
De
l
a
y
/
L
O
S
Mo
v
e
De
l
a
y
/
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
/
L
O
S
Mo
v
e
De
l
a
y
/
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
LO
S
LOS

ALA
M
O
S

ROA
D

@
V
IA

BEL
L
A
[
I
NT
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
8 ]

-

M
o
r
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
7 7
]

7. 5
/
A
EB

9. 4
/
A

7. 5
/
A
EB
10 .
3 /
B

0. 9
A-
B

-

E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
8 8
]

7. 4
/
A
EB

9. 0
/
A

7. 5
/
A
EB
10 .
0 /
B

1. 0
A-
B
WES
T
I
N

RES
O
R
T

VIL
L
A
S

@
D
IN
A
H

SHO
R
E

DR.

[
I
NT
.
1 3
]

-

M
o
r
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
8 2
]

9. 5
/
A
NB
12 .
3 /
B

9. 8
/
A
NB
13 .
0 /
B

0. 7
No

-

E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
9 1
]
10 .
2 /
B
NB
18 .
0 /
C
10 .
5 /
B
NB
19 .
9 /
C

1. 9
No
a.

Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

3 i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

t
h
e

H
C
S

w
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
s
.

T
h
e

v
a
l
u
e
s

s
h
o
w
n

a
s
s
u
m
e

a
n

e
i
g
h
t

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

t
r
u
c
k

m
i
x

a
n
d

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
s

s
h
o
w
n

i
n

F
i
g
u
r
e

6 -
1 a
n
d

F
i
g
u
r
e

6 -
2 .

N
A
=
N
o
t

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
.

T
h
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n
de
l
a
y

a
n
d

L
O
S

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

s
i
t
e

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

i
s

n
o
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e

i
f

a
n

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

b
u
t

s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
b.

De
l
a
y
=
a
v
e
r
a
g
e

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

de
l
a
y

(s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
)

f
o
r

th
e

le
f
t
-
t
u
r
n

mo
v
e

fr
o
m

th
e

ma
j
o
r

s
t
r
e
e
t

on
t
o

t
h
e

mi
n
o
r

s
t
r
e
e
t
.

L
O
S

w
a
s

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

f
r
o
m

th
e

d
e
l
a
y

(0
-
1 0

se
c
.
/
v
e
h
.

=

LO
S

A
;

1 0
-
1 5

se
c
.
/
v
e
h
.

=

LO
S

B;
15 -
2 5

s
e
c
.
/
v
e
h
.

=

L
O
S

C
;

2 5
-
3 5

s
e
c
.
/
v
e
h
.

=

L
O
S

D
;

3 5
-
5 0

s
e
c
.
/
v
e
h
.

=

L
O
S

E
;

5 0
+

s
e
c
.
/
v
e
h
.

=

L
O
S

F
)

p
e
r

H
C
M

2 0
0 0

p
a
g
e

1 7
-
2 a
n
d

1 7
-
3 2
.

c.

EB
=

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
.

N
B
=
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
.

D
e
l
a
y
=
a
v
e
r
a
g
e

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

d
e
l
a
y

(
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
)

f
o
r

t
h
e

m
i
n
o
r
-
s
t
r
e
e
t

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

t
h
a
t

e
x
h
i
b
i
t
s

t
h
e

m
o
s
t

d
e
l
a
y

a
t

t
h
i
s

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.

L
O
S

w
a
s

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

p
e
r

t
h
e
HC
M

20 0
0 (p
a
g
e

1 7
-
2 an
d

17 -
3 2
)
.

12-2040

5-
8 Ta
b
l
e

5 -
3 Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

W
e
e
k
d
a
y

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

D
e
l
a
y

a
n
d

L
O
S
At

t
h
e

S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d

K
e
y

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

W
i
t
h

a
n
d

W
i
t
h
o
u
t

I
n
i
t
i
a
l

P
h
a
s
e

o
f

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
Si
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

W
i
t
h
o
u
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

P
l
u
s

I
n
i
t
i
a
l

P
h
a
s
e
Ch
a
n
g
e

I
n
[I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

N
u
m
b
e
r
]
De
l
a
y
Cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
LO
S
De
l
a
y
Cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
LO
S
De
l
a
y
LO
S
(S
e
c
.
/
V
e
h
.
)
V/
C
(S
e
c
.
/
V
e
h
.
)
V/
C
(S
e
c
.
/
V
e
h
.
)
BOB

HOP
E

DR.
@

W
ES
T
B
O
U
N
D

I-
1 0

R
AM
P
S
[I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

1 ]

-

M
o
r
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
8 7
]
15 .
2 0.
3 2
B
15 .
3 0.
3 3
B

0. 1
No

-

E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
9 1
]
19 .
0 0.
4 1
B
19 .
4 0.
4 2
B

0. 4
No
BOB

HOP
E

DR.
@

E
AS
T
B
O
U
N
D

I-
1 0

R
AM
P
S
[
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

2 ]

-

M
o
r
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
8 7
]
10 .
0 0.
3 8
A

9. 9

0. 3
9 A
-0
.
1 No

-

E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
9 7
]

9. 1

0. 2
7 A

8. 9

0. 2
8 A
-0
.
2 No
DA
VAL
L

DRI
V
E

@
R
AM
O
N

ROA
D
[I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

3 ]

-

M
o
r
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
9 6
]
28 .
7 0.
6 3
C
28 .
7 0.
6 3
C

0. 0
No

-

E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
9 0
]
24 .
8 0.
5 2
C
25 .
0 0.
5 4
C

0. 2
No
RAT
T
L
E
R

ROA
D

@
R
AM
O
N

ROA
D
[I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

4 ]

-

M
o
r
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
9 1
]

8. 8

0. 2
9 A

8. 7

0. 3
0 A
-0
.
1 No

-

E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
8 6
]

7. 3

0. 3
4 A

7. 2

0. 3
5 A
-0
.
1 No
LOS

ALA
M
O
S

ROA
D

@
R
AM
O
N

ROA
D
[
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

5 ]

-

M
o
r
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
8 3
]

5. 0

0. 3
2 A

6. 2

0. 3
6 A

1. 2
No

-

E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
9 3
]

4. 2

0. 2
7 A

5. 3

0. 3
1 A

1. 1
No
BOB

HOP
E

DRI
V
E

@
R
AM
O
N

ROA
D
[I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

6 ]

-

M
o
r
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
8 6
]
20 .
6 0.
5 6
C
20 .
7 0.
5 7
C

0. 1
No

-

E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
9 7
]
21 .
2 0.
5 2
C
21 .
2 0.
5 2
C

0. 0
No
EAS
T
B
O
U
N
D

I-
1 0

R
AM
P
S

@
R
AM
O
N

ROA
D
[
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

7 ]

-

M
o
r
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
8 8
]

3. 6

0. 4
8 A

3. 6

0. 4
9 A

0. 0
No

-

E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
9 1
]

5. 2

0. 4
9 A

5. 2

0. 5
0 A

0. 0
No
BOB

HOP
E

DRI
V
E

@
C
AS
I
N
O
[
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

9 ]

-

M
o
r
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
8 3
]

4. 7

0. 3
7 A

4. 7

0. 3
7 A

0. 0
No

-

E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

[
P
H
F
=
0 .
8 7
]

7. 0

0. 3
2 A

7. 0

0. 3
2 A

0. 0
No
a.

De
l
a
y

=

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

D
e
l
a
y

(
s
e
c
o
n
d
s

p
e
r

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
)
.

A
s
s
u
m
e
s

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
s

s
h
o
w
n

i
n

Fi
g
u
r
e

6-
1 an
d

Fi
g
u
r
e

6-
2 an
d

an

ei
g
h
t

pe
r
c
e
n
t

t
r
u
c
k

m
i
x
.

Ba
s
e
d

up
o
n

th
e

Hi
g
h
w
a
y

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Ma
n
u
a
l

s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d