HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 Agenda Packet - Part 3 (3B attachments)Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 53
Moreover, the ECHO database focuses on inspection, violation, and enforcement data for the Clean Air Act
(CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and also includes Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data.
In March of 2022, a search was performed on all three database platforms. The search results did not identify
any records or sites in connection with the subject property. The GeoTracker, EnviroStor, and ECHO database
results did not identify any Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Sites, Land Disposal Sites,
Military Sites, DTSC Hazardous Waste Permits, DTSC Cleanup Sites, or Permitted Underground Storage Tanks
on or around the project property.
GeoTracker listed two sites within a mile radius of the project. The closest registered site is Marriott’s Desert
Springs #2, located at 74855 Country Club Drive, approximately 0.72 miles southeast of the project. This site
is listed as a Lust Cleanup Site; however, the status of the site is Completed – Case Closed as of May 1998. The
second site is Avondale Country Club, located approximately 1.0 mile east of the project at 75800 Clubhouse
Drive. This site is also listed as Completed – Case Closed as of July 1992. Due to the distances of the registered
sites from the project property and their statuses of Completed – Case Closed, the project will not result in
impacts to the project.
The ECHO database listed eleven sites within a mile radius of the project property. The registered facilities are
listed below:
• Santa Rosa Country Club, located south and west of the project at 38105 Portola Avenue, is registered
by the RCRA as an active SQG. No violations.
• Desert Willow Golf Resort, located approximately 0.10 miles west of the project at 38500 Portola
Avenue, is registered by the RCRA as an active “other” facility. No violations.
• Westin Desert Willow Villas, located at 75 Willow Ridge and approximately 0.25 miles west of the
project. This site is registered by the Clean Water Act (CWA) as a minor general permit covered facility
for construction stormwater. The permit expired September 2014. There are no violations.
• Sovereign Health of California is located at 39800 Portola Avenue, approximately 0.37 miles south of
the project. This site is registered by the RCRA as an active small quantity generator (SQG). No
violations.
• Palm Desert Greens, located at 73750 Country Club Drive, approximately 0.68 miles southwest of the
project site. This listed site is registered by the RCRA as an active other facility. No violations.
• Findlay Shirley is located at 73531 Desert Greens Drive, approximately 0.75 miles southwest of the
project site.
• CSU San Bernardino is located at 37500 Cook Street, approximately 0.90 miles northeast of the project
site. This site is registered by the RCRA as an active other. No violations.
• Ralphs Grocery CO #27 is located at 74884 Country Club Drive, approximately 1 mile southwest of
the project. This site is registered by the RCRA as an active other. No violations.
• Rite Aid #5682 is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the project, at 74958 Country Club Drive.
This site is listed as registered by the RCRA as an active large quantity generator (LQG). No violations.
• Palm Desert C&C Cleaners Inc. is located at 74924 Country Club Drive, approximately 1 miles
southwest of the project site. This site is listed by the RCRA as an active other facility. No violations.
• Desert Falls Villas 1 HOA is located approximately 1 mile east of the project, at 540 Desert Falls Drive.
This site is registered by the RCRA as an active “other” facility. No violations.
ECHO listed eleven sites within a mile of the project property, however, they are all listed within the database
as not having an identified violation within the recorded three-year history. Therefore, the listed sites are not
anticipated to impact the project.
Unlike the GeoTracker and ECHO databases, the EnviroStor database did not identify a facility within a mile
radius of the project site.
Item 3B - Page 327
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 54
After the search of the three databases, it can be concluded that the registered facilities are not anticipated to
affect the project site due to their distance to the site and their status as “Completed -Case Closed” or no
violations. Overall, no impacts are anticipated.
e) No Impact. The project is not located near an existing airport or airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a
private airstrip. The nearest airport facility to the project is the Bermuda Dunes Airport, located approximately
5.25 miles to the southeast. The Palm Springs International Airport is approximately 7.50 miles northwest of
the project site. As a result, the project is located outside each of the airports’ influence and planning area.
Flights approaching and departing the Palm Springs International Airport and Bermuda Dunes Airport may fly
over the City and the project site with an intermittent frequency, however, it is not anticipated to result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. No impacts are expected.
f) Less than Significant Impact. The Safety Element of the City’s 2016 General Plan Update (Chapter 8 Safety,
page 109 through 130 is designed to address concerns regarding the City’s capability to respond to potential
natural or man-made disasters and establishes goals, policies and programs to ensure effective response. The
proposed project will be developed adjacent to existing residential communities in an area of the City that is
primarily zoned for residential use. The proposed project site design will be reviewed by the Palm Desert Fire
Department for compliance with project-specific emergency access, water pressure and similar requirements as
a routine aspect of the City of Palm Desert’s design review process. During construction activities, the project
will be required to prepare a traffic control plan to reduce conflicts with the surrounding land uses. Therefore,
emergency access and evacuation of the site will not be impaired by project development. Less than significant
impacts are anticipated.
g) No Impacts. The site is surrounded by developed land primarily consisting of residential and open space/golf
uses and is not adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands. According to CALFIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones
in State Responsible Areas Map, the project site is not located in a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone. In addition, CALFIRE’s Very Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in Locally Responsible
Areas (LRAs) Map indicates that the project is located in a Local, State/Federal non-VHFHSZ area. Therefore,
impacts of exposing people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires are not expected.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Item 3B - Page 328
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 55
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner, which would result
in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Sources: Flood Insurance Rate Map # 06065C1615G, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Effective August 28,
2008; Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region, January 2019; 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban
Water Management Plan, June 2021.
Summary of Regulatory Framework Relevant to Hydrology and Water Quality:
Hydrology refers to the occurrence, distribution, and movement of surface water, including water found in rivers
and stormwater drainage systems. Stormwater particularly refers to the surface runoff and drainage resulting from
rain events. Stormwater runoff and surface drainage patterns are determined by the soil conditions, topography, and
associated gradients of the land. Surface water quality refers to selected physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics found in stormwater in relation to existing standards. Groundwater is the water found underground
in the voids in soil, sand, and rock. It is stored in and moves slowly through aquifers. Groundwater supplies are
naturally replenished, or recharged, by precipitation that seeps into the land’s surface and by replenishment efforts
made by local water agencies.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 was enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation’s waters by regulating the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. from point sources.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was enacted as a program u nder the CWA to
regulate non-point source discharges from urban land runoff and other diffused sources that were also found to
contribute to runoff pollution. Under CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegated the NPDES
program responsibility to various state, tribal, and territorial governments, enabling them to perform many of the
permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the program. California is a delegated NPDES state and has
authority to administer the NPDES program within its limits.
Item 3B - Page 329
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 56
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code section 13000 et seq.) is the principal law
governing water quality regulation for surface waters in California, thus effectuating the delegated provisions of the
federal CWA and its NPDES program. It has set forth a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the
beneficial uses applicable to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to point and nonpoint sources of
pollution. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes that, as a matter of policy, all the waters of the State shall be protected;
all activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within
reason; and that the state must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water
in the state from degradation. The Porter-Cologne Act established the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) and nine California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), including Region 7, Colorado
River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board, which has jurisdiction in the City of Palm Desert and project
site.
Under this framework, the Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) serves as the guiding
document prepared, adopted, and maintained to identify the existing and potential beneficial uses of waters of the
State and establish water quality objectives to protect these uses. It is worth noting that as defined in Section 13374
of the California Water Code (CWC), the term "Waste Discharge Requirements” (WDRs) is equivalent of the term
"permits” and is therefore attained through a regulatory compliance process. Compliance with WDRs is achieved
through the appropriate permit registration process under the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) programs described in this section.
At the regional level, the project is located within the Whitewater River Watershed, which is an arid desert region
encompassing approximately 1,645 square miles. Within this watershed, an area of approximately 367 square miles
(22 percent) encompassing most of the existing development in the Coachella Valley region, is regulated under the
established Whitewater River Region Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (MS4 Permit). The Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), Mission Springs Water District, and the
incorporated Coachella Valley cities, including Palm Desert have joint permittee responsibility for coordinating the
regional MS4 Permit compliance programs and other activities aimed at reducing potential pollutants in urban
runoff from land development construction, municipal, commercial, and industrial areas to the maximum extent
possible. These public entities are generally in charge of stormwater management within their jurisdiction.
At the City level, hydrology and stormwater regulations are codified in Chapter 24.20 (Stormwater Management
and Discharge Control) and Chapter 27.12.056 (Required On-Site Retention). Chapter 42.20 is intended to reduce
pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable, while Chapter 27.12.056 establishes on -site
retention facilities for the controlling 100-year storm event.
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project site of approximately 18.3 acres is characterized by a vacant
condition on relatively flat land with sparse vegetation coverage and a gentle elevation descent toward the
southeast. Based on the most current published U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map, Myoma
Quadrangle, 7.5-Minute Series, the project limits are absent of any mapped drainage flow lines, wash areas, or
water bodies. Moreover, based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) Panel 06065C1615G, the project site occurs within a Zone X designation, corresponding to an
area of minimal flood hazard, which by classification is not considered a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
or a designated floodway.
During construction and operation (life of the project), implementation of the proposed residential development
will be required to comply with CWA, NPDES, state, and local regulations designed to prevent violations or
impacts to surface water quality standards and waste discharge requirements pertinent to surface or ground
water quality. The project does not seek any permitting actions that would vary from the establish requirements
and associated compliance plans.
During the period of construction, the project proponent must comply with the State’s most current NPDES
Construction General Permit (CGP), Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-
Item 3B - Page 330
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 57
006-DWQ. Compliance with the CGP requires the preparation of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a project-specific
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), designed to prevent potential adverse impacts to surface
water quality, including erosion and siltation, during the period of construction. The NOI and SWPPP are
submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for approval and permit coverage. The
SWPPP a site-specific compliance plan required to identify a strategy of storm water Best Management
Practices (BMPs) in accordance with Section XIV (SWPPP Requirements) of the CGP. Storm water BMPs
refer to a schedule of activities, prohibitions, practices, maintenance procedures, and other management
practices to avoid, eliminate, or reduce the pollution of the receiving waters, primarily focused on preventing
erosion, siltation, illicit discharge, and contamination. The SWPPP will include such measures as erosion
control, sediment control, storm drain inlet protection, proper waste management and pollution prevention. The
SWPPP must be prepared concurrently with final engineering design and must meet all NPDES plan review
elements with plan review by the City of Palm Desert. The City’s review and approval process ensures that all
responsible parties and compliance plan elements are properly demonstrated for compliance. Compliance of
this plan during construction will be regulated and enforced as part of the local agency site inspection protocols.
In order to obtain a grading permit, the project proponent is required to submit and obtain approval for a Project-
Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the current standards of the Whitewater
River Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff, the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit,
and the City of Palm Desert’s on-site stormwater retention requirements (Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter
27.12.056). The WQMP is a compliance plan required to account for the stormwater facilities and management
conditions to be followed by the site operator during the life of the project (post -construction). Plan approval
involves recording an agreement of the WQMP against the property to ensure that the City is allowed access
and enforcement on this matter.
The current site plan identifies multiple designated locations for stormwater retention, incorporated into the
landscape design. During the course of final engineering, additional retention locations may be identified to
adequately distribute the retention quantities in relation to the site plan. The method of stormwater retention
may occur as surface basins and/or underground structures, both of which have a precedent of being approved
to the City. The combined retention facility capacity for the project must abide by Chapter 27.12.056 of the
Palm Desert Municipal Code, which mandates retention sizing to account for the stormwater volume resulting
from the controlling 100-year, 24-hour duration storm event. The project’s engineering plans and WQMP will
be subject to City review and approval
In summary, during construction and operation, project implementation will require plan-based compliance
with CWA, NPDES, and local regulations to prevent impacts to water quality standards and the beneficial uses
assigned to local receiving waters. In summary, during construction and operation, project implementation will
require compliance with CWA, NPDES, and local regulations to prevent impacts to water quality standards and
the beneficial uses assigned to local receiving waters. Following City engineering review and approval, the
stormwater capture and management strategy for on- and off-site runoff will avoid waste discharge violations
through the implementation of properly sized retention facilities. Less than significant impacts are expected.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The project site and entire City of Palm Desert are located within the domestic
water service area of Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), which covers approximately 1,000 square
miles, serving approximately 110,000 homes and businesses. The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is the
primary groundwater source for the project region’s domestic water purveyors, including CVWD. Based on the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has an
approximate storage capacity of 39.2 million acre-feet (AF) of water within the upper 1,000 feet and is divided
into four subbasins: Indio, Mission Creek, Desert Hot Springs, and San Gorgonio. The project site is specifically
underlain by the Indio Subbasin, which is also known as the Whitewater River Subbasin. DWR has estimated
that the Indio Subbasin contains approximately 29.8 million AF of water in the first 1,000 feet below the ground
surface, representing approximately 76 percent of the total groundwater in the Coachella Valley Groundwater
Basin. Local groundwater management is currently taking place under the framework of the 2020 Coachella
Item 3B - Page 331
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 58
Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2020 RUWMP), the preparation of which involved the
collaboration of the six urban water suppliers in the Coachella Valley, including CVWD. The 2020 RUWMP
describes the region’s water supplies and anticipated demands through 2045, along with each agency’s
programs to encourage efficient water use.
In 2002, CVWD developed the 2002 Coachella Valley Groundwater Management Plan in collaboration with
other local stakeholders with a focus on reducing overdraft, preventing groundwater level decline, protecting
groundwater quality, and preventing land subsidence. In 2010, the 2010 Coachella Valley Groundwater
Management Plan Update was prepared to document the accomplishments in reducing overdraft and address
changed conditions since 2002.
In 2014, the California Legislature signed a three-bill legislative package into law, collectively known as the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), allowing local agencies to manage groundwater resources
in a sustainable manner. SGMA required that a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GS P) or Alternative Plan to
a GSP (Alternative Plan) be adopted for basins and subbasins designated by the DWR as medium - and high-
priority basins. Basin prioritization is based on a variety of factors such as population, number of wells, and
other information determined to be relevant by DWR. The Indio Subbasin was designated as a medium-priority
subbasin by DWR.
CVWD, Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA)
collectively represent the Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs). In January 2017, the
GSAs submitted to DWR the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (2010 CVWMP), accompanied
by an Indio Subbasin Bridge Document, as a SGMA-compliant Alternative Plan. On July 17, 2019, DWR
approved the Alternative Plan with a requirement to submit an Alternative Plan Update by January 1, 2022 and
every five years thereafter. Based on the Indio Subbasin SGMA documentation, the combined strategies have
resulted in significant groundwater storage increases across the subbasin, thus allowing the region to comply
with the framework for sustainable management.
In 2019, the six urban water suppliers in the Coachella Valley, including CVWD, agreed to collaborate on the
preparation of the 2020 RUWMP with regional and individual agency content. In June of 2021 CVWD’s Water
Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) was prepared to outline each agency’s actions that could be taken during
a water shortage to reduce demands. According to the WSCP, drought conditions are not expected to affect
CVWD’s Colorado River water supply due to the agency’s high priority allocation. Colorado River water is not
a direct source of urban water supply; it is used for groundwater replenishment and non -potable uses. If a
reduction in Colorado River water supply occurred, CVWD would initially reduce deliveries to groundwater
replenishment projects. Drought conditions in the Sierra Nevada would have an effect on the SWP water
allocation; thus reducing the SWP Exchange water received by CVWD and DWA. This water is used for
replenishment of the groundwater basin and is not a direct source of urban water supply. Consequently, water
use restrictions due to drought involving the SWP water supply would likely be implemented only as a result
of a prolonged drought. During dry periods when less imported water is available, groundwater production is
expected to exceed the amount of recharge, and the volume in storage will be reduced. However, these
reductions can be reversed in years when additional imported water is available. The Coachella Valley
Groundwater Basin is deemed to be a large basin which provides a buffer during dry periods, thus allowing the
agencies to develop long-term plans and programs to manage regional water supplies.
CVWD collaborates with the operation and maintenance of three replenishment facilities serving the Indio
Subbasin: Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility, the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater
Replenishment Facility, and the Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility. Artificial replenishment, or
recharge, is recognized by the water districts as one of the most effective methods available for preserving local
groundwater supplies, reversing aquifer overdraft and meeting demand by domestic consumers. According to
the CVWD web site on Groundwater Replenishment and Imported Water, local agencies have percolated over
650 billion gallons of water back into the aquifer. In the central part of the Coachella Valley, groundwater
Item 3B - Page 332
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 59
recharge is provided by the recently constructed first phase of the Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment
Facility, operated by CVWD. According to the CVWD web site, this facility is expected to add up to 25,000
acre-feet of Colorado River water annually into the aquifer. Combined with water conservation and efficiency
requirements, individual development projects can contribute to groundwater sustainability by implementing
the required stormwater runo59etentiontion and infiltration facilities.
The proposed development is deemed consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation. The
established groundwater replenishment facilities described above for the Indio Subbasin are not located near
the project. Therefore, from the aspect of land use and location, project implementation is not deemed to be in
conflict with any existing or planned groundwater recharge facility or associated infrastructure.
The proposed residential uses and associated improvements are expected to incorporate water conservation
measures, including the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures, drought-tolerant (native) outdoor landscaping, and
water-efficient irrigation systems. As a standard condition for service connections, the project operators will be
expected to furnish the appropriate rate payment to CVWD based on the meter size, ongoing flow charges,
agency fees, and groundwater recharge fees.
Furthermore, the project will incorporate on-site retention facilities to ensure that stormwater runoff is
adequately intercepted, conveyed, and retained on-site instead of being discharged off-site as urban runoff. As
a function of the WQMP, operation of the development will include the required non -structural and structural
pollution source control measures that work toward the protection of groundwater quality during the life of the
project and under the project owner’s responsibility. Non-structural source control measures consist of site
operations, activities, and/or programs to be finalized in the WQMP and implemented by the project operator
to educate site managers, employees, and residents to prevent potential pollutants from being produced, coming
into contact with the storm drain system, and impacting groundwater. Structural source control measures consist
of physical facility design standards to prevent direct contact between potential pollutants and stormwater
runoff. The storm drain and basin system will be maintained during the life of the project per a required WQMP
agreement to be entered between the project proponent and the City. The proposed facilities ar e therefore not
expected to violate or interfere with the groundwater quality. Regarding ground water quality, less than
significant impacts are anticipated.
c)i) Less than Significant Impact. The undeveloped project site involves a relatively flat terrain that is absent of
any mapped naturally occurring drainage or flood-prone patterns. The surrounding land is a combination of
residential neighborhoods, golf courses, and roadways. Therefore, development of the site would not result in
any alteration or obstruction of any river, stream, or other naturally occurring drainage pattern. Based on the
USGS Web Soil Survey, the site soils consist of Myoma fine sand corresponding to Hydrologic Soil Group A,
which is characterized for having low runoff potential and high infiltration rates. Therefore, the site soils are
not deemed to be prone to existing erosion or siltation.
As a standard practice, erosion and siltation will be prevented during construction and operation through the
required compliance plans. During construction, the required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
will include best management practices to prevent erosion and siltation from bring generated by the site clearing,
grading, and construction activities through the use of various measures, such as perimeter containment, proper
soil stabilization, and source controls per the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) standards.
Upon construction completion, all construction related soil disturbance shall be properly restored to a stabilized
condition consisting of permanent project improvements (buildings, hardscape, pavement, and landscaping).
During the life of the project, the ongoing maintenance and operation of facilities will ensure that all
permanently improved ground surfaces are adequately maintained. All project-related runoff will be conveyed
along engineered sheet flow or defined conveyances leading to the designated retention facilities per the final
engineering plans. In doing so, the project will improve the existing drainage, erosion, and siltation condition
Item 3B - Page 333
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 60
associated with the undeveloped site condition. Less than significant impacts are anticipated regarding
substantial erosion or siltation, on- or off-site.
ii) Less than Significant Impact. Based on FEMA FIRM Panel Number 06065C1615G, effective August 28,
2008, the project site occurs within a Zone X designation, corresponding to an area of minimal flood hazard,
which is not considered a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) or a designated floodway. As a standard
condition, the project is required to include the adequate improvements and site design features to handle the
relevant hydrologic conditions in a way that prevents inundation to the proposed structures and facilities.
The project will introduce impervious surfaces (buildings, hardscape, asphalt, etc.) to a vacant property, but
will also include the appropriate storm drain system (catch basins, lines, outlets, and retention facilities) to
adequately intercept, convey and retain the controlling storm event stormwater volume from the site. Following
City engineering review, the proposed development is not expected to substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Less than significant impacts are
anticipated.
iii) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Palm Desert is a Permittee of the Whitewater River Watershed
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit area. Within the City limits, MS4 facilities include a
system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters,
ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains) designed for collecting and conveying stormwater. Storm drain
facilities can be public or private. Examples of public facilities include pipes, gutters, channels, and basins
occurring on the public right-of-way and/or maintained by a public agency. Private facilities are distinguished
by being maintained separately by a private entity. The undeveloped project site is absent of any publicly
operated storm drain facilities. On the adjacent public streets, being Frank Sinatra Drive to the north and Portola
Avenue to the east, off-site storm drain facilities primarily consist of curb/gutter conveyances and public catch
basins.
The traditional land development process generally results in the conversion of pervious ground surface (pre -
development condition) into a setting with a higher impervious cover, occurring through the introduction of
buildings, streets, and hardscape (post-development condition). This conversion generally leads to an increase
in post-construction runoff volumes and rates compared to the pre-development condition.
As a standard requirement under Chapter 27.12.056 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (Required on-site
retention), the project must include retention facilities sized to contain stormwater volume resulting from the
controlling 100-year, 24-hour duration storm event. The project’s engineering plans and retention levels will be
subject to standard City review and approval. Therefore, by comply with the local retention requirements, the
project will be prohibited from resulting in a condition of producing urban runoff capable of exceeding the MS4
capacity. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
iv) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located outside of any designated SFHA, floodway, or
drainage flow line as determined by FEMA and USGS maps. Therefore, the project will not impede or redirect
any discernable drainage course, floodplain, or flood prone area. As a standard condition, the proposed
development will include a storm drain system and associated retention facilities to meet the City’s engineering
requirements and to provide adequate protection to the new facilities. The associated grading and hydrology
plans will be subject to standard City review and approval. In doing so, the project will not be capable or
permitted to impede or redirect flood flows, resulting in less than significant impacts.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The project is not located near any coastal areas or any large body of water and
therefore is not prone to tsunami hazards or seiche risks. The project site is not located in a floodplain or special
flood hazard area. As a standard requirement, the project incorporates on-site retention facilities to handle
project-related runoff volume up to the controlling 100-year storm event. Being residential in nature, the project
will not involve the storage or handling of any significant quantiti es of hazardous substances or petroleum
Item 3B - Page 334
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 61
products that would in turn be vulnerable to release due to flooding. With these required improvements subject
to City review and approval, less than significant impacts are anticipated pertaining to flood hazard.
e) Less than Significant Impact. The project proponent is required to implement a project-specific Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) to comply with the most current standards of the Whitewater River Region MS4
Permit and with the City’s on-site retention standards. The final form of the WQMP will be consistent with
final engineering documents to incorporate the grading, hydrology, and other improvement plans to demonstrate
how the site design, source controls, and operation and maintenance program will achieve compliance. The
combined retention capacity for the project will meet the stormwater volume resulting from the controlling 100-
year storm event. Moreover, the project’s storm water retention facilities will ensure that only stormwater runoff
is recharged into the ground via infiltration. Therefore, project implementation is not expected to conflict with
the regional groundwater management strategies or with the Indio Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater
Management Plan. Less than significant impacts are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Item 3B - Page 335
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 62
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan; Palm Desert Municipal Code; State of California Government Code 65915.
a) No Impact. The project proposes the development of a residential community consisting of one, 3-story
apartment building with 109 dwelling units, eleven, 3-story apartment buildings with 24 dwelling units in each
building, and one, 3-story building with 21 dwelling units. The project would include a total of 394 residential
units. The project also proposes a 22,500-square-foot clubhouse, fitness center, community pool, recreational
courts, dog park, and open space areas, in addition to paved drive aisles and pathways, landscaping, and
approximately 671 total parking stalls. Vehicular access will occur at the project’s northern and eastern
boundary, at two points at Frank Sinatra Drive and one point on Portola Avenue, respectively.
The project is located on approximately 18.3 acres of vacant land south of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of
Portola Avenue in the City of Palm Desert. The land uses surrounding the project site includes single family
residential homes to the north (separated from the project site by Frank Sinatra Drive), Desert Willow Golf
Resort and the Retreat at Desert Willow Condominiums to the east (separated from the project by Portola
Avenue), and a maintenance building with parking lot located to the south. Immediately west of the project site
includes a vacant property, which has been disturbed from grading associated with a previously planned
residential community. The western property is separated from the project site by an electricity easement. This
property is owned by a separate landowner. Additionally, a vacant and undeveloped parcel of land is located
northeast of the project; however, this property is separated from the project by the Frank Sinatra Drive and
Portola Avenue intersection. The project site and surrounding area is located within the City’s Planned
Residential (PR) zoning district.
The existing areas north and east of the project are developed and operate separately from each other. The
vacant parcels west and northeast of the project site are owned by different landowners. Therefore, the
development of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No impact.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the construction and operation of 394 residential
dwelling units and associated amenities and infrastructure within the City’s Town Center Neighborhood
(established in the General Plan). The Town Center Neighborhood is intended to provide moderate to higher
intensity neighborhood development that features a variety of housing choices, walkable streets, and mixed
uses. The General Plan designation of Town Center Neighborhood allows 7 to 40 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)
(page 30 of the 2016 General Plan). The Zoning Designation is Planned Residential with 22.0 du/ac (Ordinance
1324 Amended August 2017).
As previously stated, the project will consist of 394 dwelling units and residential amenities on 18.3 acres,
therefore, the proposed density of the project is 21.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Thus, the project is
consistent with the land use designation. Furthermore, the project is compatible with Land Use Policies in the
City’s General Plan, under Chapter 3 Land Use and Community Character Element (pages 41 through 50). The
project’s consistency with the General Plan Policies is listed below.
Policies
Item 3B - Page 336
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 63
Land Use & Community Character Element:
• Policy 1.1 Scale of Development. Require new development along the city’s corridors use design
techniques to moderate height and use and ensure compatible fit with surrounding development.
The project proposes 394 residential dwelling units with twelve, 3-story buildings. The residential buildings
will be oriented adjacent to Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive, separated from the roadways by block
walls, landscaping and a pedestrian sidewalk. According to the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC), building
heights within Planned Residential zones are allowed to be 40 feet or three-stories. The project is compliant
with this development standard established by the City. The buildings will be set back from the street and
separated by a pedestrian sidewalk, block walls, and landscaping. See the Aesthetics Section of this document
for further discussion of project visual character.
• Policy 1.3 Traffic Generation. Balance medium and high intensity/density development with pedestrian -
oriented and bicycle friendly design features so as to maximize trip and VMT reduction.
• Policy 1.6 Community Amenities. Balance the impacts of new development, density, and urbanization
through the provision of a high-level neighborhood and community amenities and design features.
• Policy 3.1 Complete Neighborhoods. Through the development entitlement process, ensure that all new
Neighborhoods (areas with a “Neighborhood” General Plan designa tion) are complete and well-
structured such that the physical layout and land use mix promote walking to services, biking and transit
use, are family friendly and address the needs of multiple ages and physical abilities.
• Policy 3.2 Conventional Neighborhood Design. Discourage the construction of new residential
neighborhoods that are characterized by cul-de-sacs, soundwalls, long block lengths, single building and
housing types and lack of access to goods and services.
• Policy 3.4 Balanced Neighborhoods. Within the allowed densities and housing types, promote a range of
housing and price levels within each neighborhood in order to accommodate diverse ages and incomes.
For development larger than five acres, require that a diversity of housing types be provided and that these
housing types be mixed rather than segregated by unit type.
• Policy 3.14 Access to daily activities. Require development patterns such that the majority of residents are
within one-half mile walking distance to a variety of neighborhood goods and services, such as
supermarkets, restaurants, churches, cafes, dry cleaners, laundromats, farmers markets, banks, hair care,
pharmacies and similar uses.
• Policy 3.15 Access to parks and open spaces. Require the design of new neighborhoods and, where
feasible, retrofit existing neighborhoods, so that 60 percent of dwelling units are within a ¼ mile walking
distance of a usable open space such as a tot-lot, neighborhood park, community park or plaza/green.
Project Consistency
The project will provide residential units in the City of Palm Desert. The project proposes the development of
pedestrian sidewalks and pathways throughout the site, and along Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue.
Currently, sidewalks do not exist along the project’s frontage. Bike lanes occur along Frank Sinatra Drive and
Portola Avenue. Additionally, the project proposes amenities available to the residents within the project
boundaries. The amenities include a clubhouse, pool, recreational courts, fitness center, putting green, and fire
pits, in addition to paved drive aisles and pathways, and landscaping. The implementation of the onsite
amenities will reduce VMTs since residents have access to clubhouse and fitness facilities. Vehicular access
points will occur at one point on Frank Sinatra Drive, and two points on Portola Avenue. The Frank Sinatra
Item 3B - Page 337
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 64
Drive access will have one right-out access (exit only), while Portola Avenue will have one right -out access
(exit only) and one right-in/right-out/left-in access along Portola Avenue. The proposed recreational amenities
will be accessed by the residents of the project.
Mobility Element:
• Policy 3.4 Access to Development. Require that all new development projects or redevelopment projects
provide connections from the site to the external pedestrian network.
Project Consistency
The project proposes the development of pedestrian sidewalks and pathways throughout the site, and along
Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. Currently, sidewalks do not exist along the project’s frontage. Bike
lanes occur along Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue.
The project complies with the intent and purpose identified for the “Town Center Neighborhood” land use
designation by providing multi-family residential buildings organized along walkable streetscapes. Overall, less
than significant impacts are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Item 3B - Page 338
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 65
12. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan; Mineral Resources Land Classification Map.
a,b) No Impact. In accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), mineral land
classification maps and reports have been developed to assist in the protection and development of mineral
resources. As shown in the Mineral Land Classification Map for the project area, the project site is located in
Mineral Zone MRZ-3, which indicates an area containing mineral deposits however the significance of these
deposits cannot be evaluated from available data. There are currently no mining/extraction sites within the City.
The nature of the project does not involve the extraction of mineral deposits. Construction of the proposed
buildings would rely on existing local and regional aggregate resources from permitted facilities. The project is
not expected to result in a considerable extraction and/or loss of known mineral resources that are considered
important to the Coachella Valley Region or residents of California. No impacts are expected related to the loss
of availability of known mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Item 3B - Page 339
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 66
13. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan; Palm Desert Municipal Code.
a) Less than Significant Impact. Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of
loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels [dB]), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per
second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). Sound inten sity is primarily measured in decibels
through an A-weighted measure (dBA) to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. Decibels
are measured on a logarithmic scale, which quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter sc ale
used for earthquake magnitudes. Thus, a doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as a doubled traffic
volume, would increase the noise levels by 3 dBA; halving of the energy would result in a 3 dBA decrease.
Changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dBA are
usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernable to most people in an exterior environment,
whereas a 10 dBA change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound. Ambient sound generally ranges
from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud).
Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal
activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a
logarithmic scale of sound pressure level (decibel). Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not
completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they
occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account
for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the
intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections
require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the
addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. These additions are
made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears
louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound
exposure. The City of Palm Desert relies on the 24 -hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with
transportation related noise sources.
Noise transmission is affected by a variety of factors such as temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and the
type of ground surface. Sound intensity reduced by surfaces, walls, vegetation or other material is called
attenuation. Soft ground surfaces tend to reduce sound levels better than hard surfaces. A drop-off rate of 4.5
dBA per doubling of distance is typical across soft ground. In comparison, hard ground, such as concrete, stone,
and hard packed earth reduce sound by 3.0 dBA per doubling distance. Effective noise barriers, such as walls
or berms, can help reduce noise levels by 10-15 decibels. These types of barriers can provide relief from traffic
Item 3B - Page 340
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 67
noise. Vegetation, on the other hand, is less effective for reducing noise levels. In general, walls need to be high
enough and long enough to block the view of a road to function as a noise barrier.
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging and intrusive noise levels, the
federal government, the State of California, county governments, and most municipalities in California have
established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major
source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant
with time. Air and rail traffic and commercial and industrial activities are also major sou rces of noise in some
areas. Federal, State, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise, where federal and
State agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while
regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.
Development of the proposed project would result in a residential community with up to 402 maximum (394)
residential dwelling units in 13 buildings, a clubhouse, fitness center, recreational courts, pools, and open space
areas. The project occupies approximately 18.3 acres of land south of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola
Avenue. Existing residential communities are located north and east of the project, separated by the existing
rights-of-way. Due to the vacant character of the project site, construction and operation of the proposed project
would lead to increased noise levels in the area.
The City of Palm Desert has the authority to establish land use noise standards and corresponding restrictions
under the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.24 in the Municipal Code). A range of noise standards apply to
different receiving land uses based on sensitivity and compatibility. Table 7.1, Noise Compatibility Matrix, in
the Palm Desert General Plan Noise Element. The proposed residential project corresponds to the category of
“Residential – Multi-Family”, based on the land use designation. For this category, the recommended “normally
acceptable” noise limit is 65 dBA for multi-family dwellings. Noise levels up to 70 dBA are considered
“conditionally acceptable” for residential, and other sensitive receiver land uses. This is depicted in Table 7.1
from the General Plan:
Item 3B - Page 341
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 68
Item 3B - Page 342
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 69
In addition to the compliance of Table 7.1, the project will also comply with Chapter 9.24, Noise Control, of
the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC). Per the MC, residential zones are allowed the following ten-minute
average sound level limits as it relates to a fixed noise source:
Table XIII-1 Sound Level Limits
Zone Time
Applicable Ten-Minute
Average Decibel Limit
(A-Weighted)
Residential 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 55
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 45
As discussed previously, the project property is located on vacant land surrounded by a mix of developed
residential properties and undeveloped vacant land. The project and the surrounding area are designated in the
Planned Residential (PR) zoning district, which provides flexibility in residential development, by encouraging
creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a
mixture of residential densities, mixed housing types, and community facilities.
Construction
Construction of the project site is expected to generate short-term noise increases compared to the existing
levels. A temporary incremental increase in noise levels along local roadways is expected to occur during the
transport of workers and equipment to and from the site. Noise increases will also be generated by the actual
on-site construction activities. Equipment used during the construction phases would generate both steady state
and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the project site. The residential homes north and east of
the project may be affected by construction noise generated from the project.
Noise levels generated during various construction phases are presented in Table XIII -2, Typical Maximum
Noise Levels for Construction Phases. Equipment estimates used for the analysis for grading and building
construction noise levels was provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation and are representative of
worst-case conditions, since it is unlikely that all the equipment contained on-site would operate simultaneously.
Table XIII-2 Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Construction Phases
Appropriate Leq dBA without Noise Attenuation
Construction Phase 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet 200 Feet
Clearing 90 84 78 72
Excavation 94 88 82 78
Foundation/Conditioning 94 88 82 78
Laying Subbase/Paving 85 79 73 67
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Construction Noise Handbook, Chapter 9.0, August 2006.
During construction, the project shall follow common industry standards that will help limit noise level
increases. For example, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, should be equipped with properly operating
and maintained mufflers and the engines should be equipped with shrouds. Approved haul routes shall be used
to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to potential adverse levels from hauling operations. All construction
equipment shall be in proper working order and maintained to reduce backfires. Grading activities would
involve the use of standard earth moving equipment, which would be stored on the site during construction to
minimize disruption of the surrounding land uses. Above-grade construction activities would involve the use
of standard construction equipment, such as hoist, mixer trucks, concrete pumps, laser screeds and other related
equipment.
Construction traffic and equipment is also anticipated to generate noise along access routes to the proposed
development. The larger pieces of heavy equipment would be moved onto the development only one time for
each construction activity (i.e., site prep, grading, etc.). Daily transportation of construction workers and the
Item 3B - Page 343
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 70
hauling of materials both on and off the project site are expected to cause increases in noise levels along
surrounding roadways.
As a standard requirement, the project is expected to abide by the Municipal Code regulations on construction
hours, which limit activities to the less sensitive times of the day. From October 1st through April 30th,
construction activities are only permitted between 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. From May 1st through September 30th, construction activities are only permitted
between 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Construction is not permitted on Sundays
and national holidays. Construction of the project will abide by the construction hours established in the Palm
Desert Municipal Code. Additionally, the project will utilize construction equipment compliant with industry
standards.
Less than significant impacts are anticipated during project construction.
Operation
The vacant project property is located south of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue. The
surrounding area is characterized by a mix of existing residential properties approximately 110 feet to the north,
and 130 feet to the west, a maintenance building and associated parking lot immediately south, and vacant,
undeveloped land immediately west. The existing residential communities north and east of the project site are
completely separated from the project site by the existing rights-of-way and block walls. The existing block
wall features act in reducing noise levels generated by the surrounding roadways and the proposed project to
the existing residential neighborhoods.
According to the Noise Element in the Palm Desert General Plan, the predominant noise source in the City is
motor vehicles. The City’s roadway system includes a range of facilities including regional freeways, major
highways and other arterials, and collector and local streets. Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue are
considered major roadways within the City that will reach noise contours up to 70 dBA in the future, per Figure
7.1, Future Noise Contours, of the Palm Desert General Plan. Traffic from the surrounding roadways may
impact the project site due to its adjacency to the roadways, however, design features, such as block walls and
landscape barriers will lower the noise levels generated from street traffic.
The project, as stated throughout this environmental document, is proposing a residential community on
approximately 18.3 acres of vacant land. The project will be subject to follow the noise-related prohibitions
established in Chapter 9.24, and specifically Section 9.24.050, of the PDMC, which states that the following
activities are declared to be deemed disturbing, excessive, or offensive noises:
A. Horns, Signaling Devices, Muffler Systems, Car Alarms, etc. Unnecessary use or operation of horns,
signaling devices, uncontrolled muffler noises, car alarms on vehicles of all types, including
motorcycles, and other equipment.
1. The operation of any such sound production or reproduction device, radio receiving set, musical
instrument, drum, phonograph, television set, machine, loud speaker and sound amplifier or similar
machine or device in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty feet or more from
the building, structure or vehicle in which located, or from the source point.
2. The operation of any sound amplifier, which is part of, or connected to, any radio, stereo receiver,
compact disc player, cassette tape player, or other similar device when operated in such a manner as
to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty feet from the source point or when operated in such a
manner as to cause a person to be aware of vibration at a distance of fifty feet or more from the
source point.
Item 3B - Page 344
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 71
B. Uses Restricted. The use, operation, or permitting to be played, used or operated, any sound production
or reproduction device, radio receiving set, musical instrument, drums, phonograph, television set,
loudspeakers and sound amplifiers or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound
in such a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of any reasonable person of normal
sensitiveness.
C. Prima Facie Violations. Any of the following shall constitute evidence of a prima facie violation of this
section:
1. The operation of any such sound production or reproduction device, radio receiving set, musical
instrument, drum, phonograph, television set, machine, loud speaker and sound amplifier or similar
machine or device in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty feet from the
building, structure or vehicle in which located, or from the source point.
2. The operation of any sound amplifier, which is part of, or connected to, any radio, stereo receiver,
compact disc player, cassette tape player, or other similar device when operated in such a manner as
to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty feet from the source point or when operated in such a
manner as to cause a person to be aware of vibration at a distance of fifty feet from the source point.
Noise sources associated with the proposed development are expected to include opening and closing of vehicle
doors in driveways, people talking, car alarms, trash pick-ups, and operating HVAC equipment. A grass lawn
mower at 3 feet has a typical noise level of 95 dBA, and a noise level of 70 dBA at 100 feet. However, these
activities typically occur for short periods of time and during the daytime hours. In addition to the enforceable
noise controls established in the PDMC, to minimize noise conflicts between properties, the existing and
proposed solid barriers (such as walls) are expected to reduce noise levels.
While the project would result in an increase in noise levels compared to the existing undeveloped condition ,
the nature and intensity of operations that would occur in the proposed structures are not expected to result in
the generation of noise levels that would surpass the community noise and land use compatibility standards.
Additionally, the project is expected to result in an increase in traffic-related noise levels on the local roadways
since the project proposes a maximum of 402 (actual count is 394) residential units. Vehicles within the
residential neighborhood will not exceed 25 miles per hour, unless otherwise posted (per the California
Department of Motor Vehicles). For example, a vehicle traveling 30 mph, generates 62 dBA at 50 feet. This is
acceptable in a multi-family residential area. The project will not result in a significant increase in traffic noise.
Vehicle use of Frank Sinatra Dive (north of the project property) and Portola Avenue (east of the project
property) generates traffic noise. Impacts of noise generated from these roadways to the project would be
reduced via noise reduction design features such as block walls and landscaping. The project proposes setbacks,
walls, and building materials used for the residential homes in order to reduce noise generated offsite. Typical
of residential communities, the perimeter walls will consist of concrete masonry block. In addition to the
setbacks and block walls proposed between the residential lots and the roadways, the residential structures will
be designed with noise reducing materials per building standards (California Building Code Section 1206).
Noise reducing materials include well-fitted windows, weather-stripped doors, airtight walls, industry standard
roofs, and proper ventilation. The use of these noise reducing materials, as standard state regulations, will ensure
noise experienced indoors is reduced to less than significant levels.
Noise generated by the project site is anticipated to be similar to the existing residential land uses that currently
define the surrounding area and less than significant impacts are expected.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Groundborne vibration also referred to as earthborne vibration, can be described
as perceptible rumbling, movement, shaking or rattling of structures and items within a structure. Groundborne
vibration can generate a heightened disturbance in residential areas. These vibrations can disturb residential
Item 3B - Page 345
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 72
structures and household items while creating difficulty for residential activities such as reading or other tasks.
Although groundborne vibration is sometimes perceptible in an outdoor en vironment, it does not result in the
degree of disturbance that is experienced inside a building. Vibration is quantified by various methods. The
peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is
most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human
response (annoyance) because it takes time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the
human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean squared (RMS). The
RMS amplitude is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe
the effect of vibration on the human body. RMS is commonly measured by Decibel notation (VdB), which
serves reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration. Typically, ground -borne
vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration.
Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (i.e., residents,
the elderly and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment and/or activities.
Table XIII-3, Groundborne Vibration and Noise from Typical Construction Equipment, below indicates the
PPV and VdB of construction equipment at various distances.
Table XIII-3
Groundborne Vibration and Noise from Typical Construction Equipment
Note: No pile drivers, bulldozers, rock breakers, or auger drill rigs
would be utilized during construction of the project.
As shown in Table XIII-3, specific vibration levels associated with typical construction equipment are highly
dependent on the type of equipment used. Vibration levels dissipate rapidly with distance , such that even
maximum impact pile driving activities would result in vibration levels below Caltrans’ recommended 0.5 PPV
threshold for transient vibration-induced damage in historic, older buildings at a distance of 100 feet. All other
activities would be below Caltrans’ threshold for transient vibration-induced damage in historic, older buildings
at a distance of 25 feet. Historic, older buildings are not located adjacent or in the vicinity of the project property.
Standard construction equipment (e.g., bulldozers, trucks, jackhammers) generally does not cause vibration that
could cause structural or cosmetic damage but may be felt by nearby receptors. However, the use of bulldozers,
rock breakers, auger drill rigs, or pile drivers will not occur onsite.
Item 3B - Page 346
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 73
The project is surrounded by a combination of vacant and developed land. Residential uses are located north
and east of the project, separated by Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, respectively. Construction of the
project will involve the temporary operation of vehicles and equipment that could result in localized, short term
vibration increases during the permitted hours of construction established by the City. All construction
equipment staging will be located within the temporary construction limits, while vehicular and equipment
access to the construction site would be restricted to only the approved entry points that minimize disturbance
to local traffic. Short-term increases in vibration and sound during construction are not expected to result in
significant impact.
After construction, the nature of the proposed residential property would not typically involve activities
expected to generate excessive vibration or groundborne noise. All activities within the project will be required
to adhere to the City’s Noise Ordinance. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
c) No Impact. Based on the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission web site’s list of Current
Compatibility Plans Riverside County, the project is not located in the vicinity of an airport land use plan or
private airstrip, or located within the 65 dBA CNEL contours of any public or private airports. No impacts are
anticipated related to these issues.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Item 3B - Page 347
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 74
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING –
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Sources: Palm Desert General Plan; SCAG Local Profile 2018, Housing Type by Units: 2018. California Department of
Finance, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State 1990-2000 and 2011-2022.
a) No Impact. As previously discussed throughout this document, the proposed project involves the construction
and operation of a residential community on approximately 18.3 acres south of Frank Sinatra Drive and west
of Portola Avenue. The project will consist of one, 3-story apartment building with 109 dwelling units, eleven,
3-story buildings with 24 dwelling units in each, and one, 3-story building with 21 dwelling units. The project
would include a total of 394 residential units. The project also proposes a 22,500-square-foot clubhouse and
fitness center, community pool, and open space areas, in addition to paved drive aisles and pathways,
landscaping, and approximately 671 parking stalls. Vehicular access will occur along the project’s northern and
eastern boundaries, at one point from Frank Sinatra Drive and two points on Portola Avenue, respectively.
The project site and surrounding area is located within the City’s Town Center Neighborhood. The Town Center
Neighborhood is intended to provide moderate to higher intensity neighborhood development that features a
variety of housing choices, walkable streets, and mixed uses. The General Plan designation of Town Center
Neighborhood allows 7 to 40 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) (page 30 of the 2016 General Plan). The Zoning
Designation is Planned Residential with 22.0 du/ac (Ordinance 1324 Amended August 2017). As previously
stated, the project will consist of 394 dwelling units and residential amenities on 18.3 acres, therefore, the
proposed density of the project is 21.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Thus, the project is consistent with the
land use designation. Furthermore, the project is compatible with Land Use Policies in the City’s General Plan,
under Chapter 3 Land Use and Community Character Element (pages 41 through 50). Utilization of the
maximum density could result in a project with approximately 732 Dwelling Units. The project is proposing
338 dwelling units below the allowable maximum, reducing the total City increase attributed to buildout.
The Zoning Designation for the project is Planned Residential (PR). The purpose of PR districts is to provide
for flexibility in residential development, by encouraging creative and imaginative design, and the development
of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities (4 to 4 0 du/ac), mixed
housing types, and community facilities. The PR designation is consistent with the General Plan Town Center
Neighborhood.
The City’s 2016 General Plan EIR analyzed future growth under Chapter 4.13 Population, Employment, and
Housing pages 4.13-1 through 4.13-10. Table 4.13-2 (page 4.13-3) forecasts a population of 61,691 by year
2040. In 2022, the City had a population of 50,889 with an average household size of 2.05 persons (Department
of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates). As a result of project build-out (394 dwelling units), the
proposed development could add 808 new residents into the City, for an approximate population of 51,697
which is an increase of 1.6 percent and still below the 2040 population forecast of 61,691. Although the project
would contribute growth within the City of Palm Desert, significant growth to population, housing, and
employment is already anticipated in the City’s General Plan.
Item 3B - Page 348
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 75
Furthermore, the project site is within an area that is served by existing infrastructure, public services and
utilities. As a result, development of the project would not cause potentially growth inducing effects by
extending utilities into an undeveloped area.
Therefore, approval and development of this project is not expected to significantly increase population growth
in the City. Less than significant impacts are expected.
b) No Impact. The entire property is currently vacant land designated by the City General Plan as Town Center
Neighborhood and zoned for Planned Residential Developments (PR) and would not displace any existing
housing or require replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Item 3B - Page 349
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 76
15. PUBLIC SERVICES –
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Sources: Palm Desert General Plan; Palm Desert General Plan Environmental Impact Report; Desert Sands Unified School
District website.
a) Fire
Less than Significant Impact. Cal Fire/Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), under contract with the
City of Palm Desert, provides 24-hour fire protection and emergency medical services to the City. Additionally,
the City of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells are entered jointly into the Cove Communities
Service District. Through this District agreement, each city benefits from fire and emergency services provided
by the other two cities as needed. Furthermore, the Riverside County Fire Department operates under a Regional
Fire Protection Program, which allows all of its fire stations to provide support as needed regardless of
jurisdictional boundaries.
RCFD maintains three fire stations within the City of Palm Desert. Fire Station 33 is located at 44400 Town
Center Way, and covers the central portion of the City, and is approximately 3.0 miles from the proposed project
site. Fire Station 67 is located at 73200 Mesa View Drive and covers the south portion of the City and is
approximately 5.0 miles from the project site. Fire Station 71 is located at 73995 Country Club Drive and
provides service to north Palm Desert. This station is approximately 0.65 miles from the project site and
currently provides fire services to the area.
Development of the project may would result in an increase in demand for fire services, however based on the
project site’s proximity to Fire Station 71, and the existing infrastructure in place, the proposed project could
be adequately served by fire protection services within the 5-minute response time and no new or expanded
facilities would be required. Additionally, the project complies with the 2016 General Plan EIR, Safety Element
Policy 7.2 and Policy 7.8, in that the project will be reviewed by City and RCFD officials to ensure adequate
fire service and safety as a result of project implementation.
The project would be required to implement all applicable fire safety requirements, to include, installation of
fire hydrants, and sprinkler systems. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with the Fire
Facilities Impact Fee in place at the time of construction. Fire Facility Impact Fees are calculated per residential
unit and the increase in units means an increase in fees to provide the needed service. Payment of these fees
helps offset impacts by providing sufficient revenue for necessary improvements to ensure acceptable fire
Item 3B - Page 350
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 77
facilities, response times, equipment and personnel are maintained. Less than significant impacts are
anticipated with project implementation.
Police
Less than significant Impact. Law enforcement services are provided to the City of Palm Desert through a
contractual agreement with Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff’s department provides 24-hour
municipal police services associated with a City police department. The Sheriff’s station is located at 73 -705
Gerald Ford Drive and is approximately 1.0 mile from the project site. Per the Palm Desert Police Department
website, the City’s contract consists of 80 sworn deputy sheriff’s position, 36 of the 80 positions are dedicated
to the patrol division. The remaining deputies are dedicated to various assignments such as Traffic, Special
Enforcement, School Resources, and other special assignments. The 2016 General Plan EIR analyzes the
forecasted population increase and indicates police service needs would continue to be met by the City and
Palm Desert PD if additional patrol hours are deemed necessary (Chapter 4.14 Public Services and Utilities
page.
Project development may increase the need for police services. However, this demand is not expected to hinder
the City’s ability to provide police services or create demands that would require the construction of a new
police station or new facilities. The proposed Project would be developed in an urban area and is surrounded
by existing development which is already served by the Palm Desert PD. Additionally, the project complies
with the 2016 General Plan EIR, Safety Element Policy 7.2 and Policy 7.8 and will be reviewed by City and
police staff to ensure adequate service is maintained as a result of project implementation. The project would
also be required to comply with Development Impact Fees in place at the time of construction. These fees on
new development allow the City to continue to finance public facilities which goes towards the funding of
various public services including police. It also assists in offsetting impacts by providing sufficient revenue for
necessary emergency service improvements to ensure acceptable response times, equipment and personnel are
maintained. Therefore, development of the proposed project will result in less than significant impacts to police
services.
Schools
Less than Significant Impact. Public education services are provided to the City of Palm Desert by two school
Districts; Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD).
DSUSD serves most of the developed portion of the City, including the areas south of Frank Sinatra Drive and
East of Washington Street, while the PSUSD serves the northwestern portion of the City. The proposed project
is located within the DSUSD; James Earl Carter Elementary is the closest school to the proposed project and is
approximately 1.45 miles south. Palm Desert Charter Middle School is approximately 2.15 miles south of the
project and Palm Desert High School is approximately 2.30 miles south of the project.
The project proposes the development of 394 residential units. Per the Department of Finance 2022 Population
and Housing Estimates, the average person per household (PPH) in Palm Desert is 2.05 persons. The project
has the potential to generate 142 new students based on the District’s Student Generation Rate (See Table XVI-
1).
Table XVI-1 DSUSD District Wide Student Generation Rate
School Type Dwelling Units Generation Rate* Students Generated
Elementary School 394 0.1543 61
Middle School 394 0.0867 34
High School 394 0.1203 47
Total New Students 142
*Source: 2020 DSUSD Fee Justification Study for New Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development, February 27, 2020
Item 3B - Page 351
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 78
Per the DSUSD 2020 Fee Justification Report, the District has an excess capacity at the elementary school level.
Middle schools in the district are over capacity by 50 students and Palm Desert High is over capacity by 67
students. An additional 142 students would not necessitate the construction of new school facilities. Education
funding comes from a combination of federal, state, and local sources. Assembly Bill 2926 and Senate Bill 50
(SB 50) allow school districts to collect “development fees” for all new construction for residential/commercial
and industrial use. At the time of writing, is $4.08/sq.ft. to residential and $0.66/ sq.ft for commercial. Monies
collected are used for construction and reconstruction of school facilities. Moreover, school age children may
also attend several private schools located in the Coachella Valley. The project will comply with DSUSD
development fees and less than significant impacts to local schools are expected.
Parks
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Palm Desert offers a wide range of park and recreation facilities
with various amenities. The City operates and maintains over 200 acres of parkland with more than 12 parks, 2
community centers, an aquatic center, and over 25 miles of multi-purpose trails. The proposed project would
also provide additional recreational amenities such as, a 15,000-square-foot clubhouse, a 4,500-square-foot
fitness center, community pool, and open space areas. Moreover, the 2016 General Plan EIR analyzes the
existing parkland and finds that the current parkland in the City is adequate and currently exceeds the amount
of parkland required by the QUIMBY Act and new additional residents would not significantly impact park
facilities (Chapter 4.14 Public Services and Utilities, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 4.14.4-1, page 4.14-21
and 4.14-22). The project will be required to comply with the City’s Development Impact Fees which includes
a Park & Recreation fee Therefore, less than significant impacts to parks are expected.
Other public facilities
No Impact. No increase in demand for government services or other public facilities is expected beyond those
discussed in this section.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Item 3B - Page 352
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 79
16. RECREATION –
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Sources: Palm Desert General Plan, Palm Desert General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
a,b) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Palm Desert offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities
including golf courses, bikeways, and parkland. The City is also located near thousands of acres of National
Park and National Monument lands, U.S. Forest Service wilderness lands, as well as state, regional and tribal
parks, with miles of hiking, biking and equestrian trails. The 18.3-acre property is located on vacant land south
of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue.
The project proposes additional onsite recreational amenities such as a clubhouse, fitness center, recreation
pool, yoga lawn, putting green, grilling/fire pit areas, dog park, and recreational courts/games. It is likely that
the residents of the project will use existing neighborhood parks, regional parks, or other recreational facilities
in the City. The future residents generated by the project may lead to an incremental increase in the physical
deterioration of the City public recreational facilities. However, the project will comply with the City’s parkland
in lieu fee (Quimby) and other development impact fees. Less than significant impacts are expected with project
implementation.
b) No Impact. The construction of the proposed residential neighborhood lies within the Town Center
Neighborhood land use designation and will not involve the development of a City recreational facility. No
construction or expansion of other recreational facilities is required for project implementation; therefore, no
impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Item 3B - Page 353
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 80
17. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Sources: Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis (TA) prepared by Urban Crossroads, March 2022; Residential
VMT Screening Assessment, prepared by Urban Crossroads (March 2022)
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project proposes the development of a residential community
consisting of 394 units. The project is located on approximately 18.3 acres of vacant land south of Frank Sinatra
Drive and west of Portola Avenue in the City of Palm Desert. The project proposes 13, three-story residential
buildings, a clubhouse, fitness center, community pools, and open space areas, in addition to paved drive aisles
and pathways, landscaping, and 671 parking stalls. Vehicular access to the site will occur from two points along
Portola Avenue (east) and one point at Frank Sinatra Drive (north).
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project’s northern boundary is delineated by Frank
Sinatra Drive. The eastern boundary is delineated by Portola Avenue, and the western boundary is delineated
by a combination of transmission and distribution power poles and a Southern California Edison dirt-road
easement, as well as two maintenance buildings and associated parking lot at the southwest corner of the project.
A residential neighborhood is located north of the project; Desert Willow Golf Resort is located east of the
project; and vacant land is located west of the project.
The apartment project will include eleven, 3-story buildings with 24 dwelling units each, one, 3-story building
with 21 dwelling units, and one, 3-story building with 109 dwelling units.
The Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis (TA) was prepared by Urban Crossroads, March 2022.
The purpose of the TA was to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that could result from
development of the proposed project. The TA also recommended improvements to achieve acceptable
circulation system operational conditions.
TA Analysis Methodology
The TA was prepared based in accordance with the County of Riversides Transportation Analysis Guidelines
for Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled, (December 2020) which is the guidance that the City of Palm
Desert follows for Traffic Assessments. A traffic scoping package was prepared for review and appr oval by
City staff. The package provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution and
analysis methodology. The Agreement approved by the City is included in Appendix 1.1 of the TA.
The TA is considered a conservative analysis as the project was analyzed with 402 dwelling units rather than
the proposed 394 units. The project was anticipated to be completed by 2024. For purposes of the report,
potential impacts to traffic and circulation were evaluated for each of the following conditions:
• Existing (2022) Conditions
• Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2024) Conditions
o Existing 2022 volumes
Item 3B - Page 354
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 81
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04%)
o Project Traffic
• Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project Plus Cumulative (EAPC)(2024) Conditions
o Existing 2022 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04%)
o Cumulative Development traffic
o Project Traffic
Study area intersections were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition analysis
methodology. The study area was defined in coordination with the City. The study area includes any
intersection of Collector or higher classification streets at which the proposed project would have the potential
to add 50 or more peak hour trips. Exhibit XVII-1 illustrates the study area and intersection analysis locations.
Item 3B - Page 355
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 82
Exhibit XVII-1: Traffic Analysis Study Area
Item 3B - Page 356
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 83
The “50 peak hour trip” criteria generally represents the minimum number of trips at which a typical
intersection would have the potential to be substantially impacted by a given development proposal. This rule
of thumb is a widely used tool for estimating a potential area of impact. The 11 study area inters ections
identified for the TA are listed in Table XVII-1.
Table XVII-1: Intersection Analysis Locations
ID Intersection Location ID Intersection Location
1 Monterey Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive 7 Portola Avenue/Retreat Circle (S)
2 Portola Avenue/Central Access 8 Portola Avenue/Willow Ridge
3 Shepherd Lane – North Access/Frank Sinatra Drive 9 Portola Avenue/Country Club Drive
4 Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive 10 Portola Avenue/South Access
5 Cook Street/Frank Sinatra Drive 11 Cook Street/University Park Drive
6 Portola Avenue/Retreat Circle (N)
Level of Service
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term Level of Service (LOS.) LOS is a measure
of transportation system performance based upon the ratio of traffic volume relative to the capacity of the
roadway or intersection. The volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) indicates the overall performance of the roadway
segment or intersection and corresponds to a rating of A through F identifying its level of capacity utilization
and relative level of congestion. LOS A represents free-flow traffic with little or no delay whereas LOS F
represents a breakdown of traffic flow and a high incidence of delay. The HCM methodology expresses LOS
at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different
procedures depending on the type of intersection control.
Signalized Intersections
The City of Palm Desert requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology
described in the HCM 6th Edition. Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersections average control
delay. Study area intersections have been evaluated using the Synchro (Version 11) analysis software package.
The level of service and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and
coordination of signalized intersections within a network. Table XVII -2 illustrates the signalized intersection
description of LOS.
Table XVII -2
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Description
Level of Service Average Control Delay (Seconds)
V/C < 1.0
A 0 to 10.00
B 10.01 to 20.00
C 20.01 to 35.00
D 35.01 to 55.00
E 55.01 to 80.00
F 80.01 and up
Source: HCM 6th Edition
Unsignalized Intersections
The City of Palm Desert requires the operations of unsignalized intersections to be evaluated using the
methodology described in the HCM 6th Edition. The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay
expressed in seconds per vehicle. Table XVII-3 illustrates the unsignalized intersection description of LOS.
Item 3B - Page 357
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 84
Table XVII-3
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Description
Level of Service Average Control Delay (Seconds)
V/C < 1.0
A 0 to 10.00
B 10.01 to 15.00
C 15.01 to 25.00
D 25.01 to 35.00
E 35.01 to 50.00
F >50.00
Source: HCM 6th Edition
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology
“Signal Warrants” refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to
quantitively justify or ascertain the potential need for the installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise
unsignalized intersection. The TA used the signal warrant criteria in the latest edition of Caltrans California
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) for all study area intersections.
Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the unsignalized study area intersection of Portola
Avenue/Willow Ridge (#8). The remaining unsignalized existing and future intersections are not evaluated
since they are not full access intersections.
A signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be
warranted. Meeting this condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular
location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the
signal is truly justified. Warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS.
Minimum LOS and Deficiency Criteria
Per Goal 2, Policy 1, Program 1.A of the City of Palm Desert General Plan, the City shall make a good faith
effort to achieve LOS C for peak hour intersection operations. LOS D shall be acceptable in instances when
physical constraints, land us compatibility or other urban design considerations make achieving LOS
impractical. The TA indicates that a deficiency occurs at a study are intersection if the pre-project condition is
at or better than LOS D and the addition of project trips causes the peak hour LOS of the study area intersection
to operate at unacceptable LOS (i.e., LOS E or F.) For intersections currently operating at an unacceptable
LOS, a deficiency would occur if the project contributes 50 or more peak hour trips to pre -project traffic
conditions.
Congestion Management Plan
The Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) is a State-mandated program administered by
the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) that provides a mechanism for coordinating regional
land use and development decisions in conjunction with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.)
CMP facilities in Palm Desert consist of Highway 111, Highway 74 and Monterey Avenue.
The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) program identifies network backbone and local roadways
that are needed to accommodate growth. The regional program was put into place to ensure that developments
pay their fair share, and that funding is in place for the construction of facilities needed to maintain an
acceptable level of service for the transportation system. The TUMF is a regional mitigation fee program and
is imposed and implemented in every jurisdiction in Western Riverside County.
According to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) Handbook, effective July 1, 2012, the following are provisions from the TUMF Ordinance and
provided as background information:
Item 3B - Page 358
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 85
• The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply only to new development yet to receive final
discretionary approval and or issuance of a building permit or other development right and to any
reconstruction or new use of existing buildings that results in a change of use and generates additional
vehicular trips.
• No tract map, parcel map, conditional use permit, land use permit or other entitlement shall be
approved unless payment of the mitigation fee is a condition of approval for any such entitlement.
The mitigation fee shall be paid to the applicable jurisdiction.
• No building or similar permit, certificate of occupancy or business license reflecting a change of use
shall be issued unless the applicant has paid the mitigation fee. Mitigation fees shall be imposed and
collected by the applicable jurisdiction and shall be transmitted to CVAG to be placed in the
Coachella Valley Transportation Mitigation Trust Fund. All interest or other earnings of the Fund
shall be credited to the Fund.
ANALYSIS FINDINGS
Existing (2022) Conditions
General Plan Roadways
The northern boundary of the project is Frank Sinatra Drive. The eastern boundary of the project is Portola
Avenue. Both roadways are designated as Balanced Arterials. Balanced Arterials are described as having 4
lanes undivided with bicycle lanes. Both roadways are currently existing in their full buildout conditions.
Transit Service
The study area is currently served by Sunline Transit with bus services along Cook Street via route 5 and route
10. The closest bus stop to the project is located approximately 1 mile east at the northeast corner of Cook
Street and Frank Sinatra Drive. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Sunline periodically to address
ridership, budget and community Demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments
which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Sidewalks also exist throughout the study area roadways. Currently sidewalks are located on the north side of
Frank Sinatra Drive and on the east side of Portola Avenue.
Existing on-street bike lanes are generally located throughout the study area. Both roadways include on-street
bike lanes on each side of the street.
Existing Traffic Volumes
The intersection LOS analysis was based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using
traffic count data collected in March 2022. The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM)
• Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM)
The weekday AM and PM peak hour count data were representative of typical peak hour traffic conditions in
the study area. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions such
as construction activity that would prevent or limit roadway access and detour routes.
Item 3B - Page 359
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 86
The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table XVII-4 which indicates that the study
area intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS D or better during the peak hours.
Table XVII-4 Intersection Analysis for Existing (2022) Conditions
# Intersection Traffic
Control
(Note 3)
Intersection Approach Lanes
(Note 1)
Delay
(Secs)
(Note 2)
Level of
Service
(Note 2)
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound AM PM AM PM
L/T/R L/T/R L/T/R L/T/R
1 Monterey Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive TS 2/3/0 2/3/1 2/2/1 2/2/1 20.0 22.2 C C
2 Portola Avenue/Central Access Intersection Does Not Exist
3 Shepherd Ln–N. Access/Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 0/0/0 0/0/1 1/2/0 0/2/d 12.0 10.4 B B
4 Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive TS 1/3/d 1/3/0 1/2/1 1/2/1 24.5 23.1 C C
5 Cook Street/Frank Sinatra Drive TS 2/2/0 2/3/1 2/2/1 2/2/1 12.3 25.4 B C
6 Portola Avenue/Retreat Circle (N) CSS 0/3/1 1/2/0 0/0/0 0/0/1 11.5 11.8 B B
7 Portola Avenue/Retreat Circle (S) CSS 0/3/0 0/2/0 0/0/0 0/0/1 11.4 11.7 B B
8 Portola Avenue/Willow Ridge CSS 0/2/1 1*/2/0 0/0/0 1/0/d 16.3 16.7 C C
9 Portola Avenue/Country Club Drive TS 1/2/1 1/2/d 1/2/1 1/2/1 40.7 38.2 D D
10 Portola Avenue/South Access Intersection Does Not Exist
11 Cook Street/University Park Drive TS 1/3/1>> 2/3/1 1/1/1 1/1/1 5.8 5.7 A A
1. When a right turn is designated, the land can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient for right turning
vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > >= Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane;
*=Turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane
2. Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a
traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement
(or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 software
3. TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Controlled
Existing Condition Traffic Signal Warrants
For existing (2022) traffic conditions, the unsignalized intersection of Portola Avenue/Willow Ridge is not
anticipated to warrant a traffic signal.
Projected Future Traffic
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation rates are based on data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for
Multifamily Housing-Low Rise (ITE Land Use Code 2020) land use in their published Trip Generation Manual
11th Edition, 2021. Table XVII-5 and XVII-6 illustrate the Project Trip Rates and Project Trip Generation
Results respectively.
Table XVII -5 Project Trip Generation Rates
Trip Generation Rates
(note 1)
Land Use ITE LU
Code
Quantity
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 402 DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74
Table XVII -6 Project Trip Generation Summary
Trip Generation Rates
(note 1)
Land Use ITE LU
Code
Quantity
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 402 DU 40 121 161 129 76 205 2,709
1. Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual.
Item 3B - Page 360
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 87
2. DU = Dwelling Unit
EAP (2024) Conditions
The following improvements will be in place prior to occupancy:
Portola Avenue & Central Access (#2) – Install a stop control on the eastbound approach, provide crosswalk
for north/south pedestrians on the project side of Portola Avenue and construct the intersection with the
following geometrics:
• Provide a median opening along Portola Avenue at this location to accommodate a 200 ft. northbound
left turn lane for the project access
• Provide one southbound right turn lane (90 ft)
• Provide on eastbound right lane.
The recommended 200 ft northbound left turn pocket and 90 ft southbound right turn pocket adequately
accommodates peak hour volumes for the project.
North Access and Frank Sinatra Drive (#3) – Construct the project access as a right-out only access with
crosswalk for east/west pedestrians on the project side of Frank Sinatra Drive. Cross -street stop control on the
northbound approach provides acce3ptable peak hour service levels.
Portola Avenue & South Access (#10) – Construct the project access as a right-out only access with crosswalk
for north/south pedestrians on the project side of Portola Avenue. Cross-street stop control on the eastbound
approach provides acceptable peak hour service levels.
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for
the project site.
Sight distance at the project access points should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of
Palm Desert sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street
improvement plans.
Table XVII-7 indicates that all project intersections will operate at LOD D or better under EAP 2024
Conditions.
Table XVII-7 Intersection Analysis for EAP (2024) Conditions
# Intersection Traffic
Control
(Note 3)
Intersection Approach Lanes
(Note 1)
Delay
(Secs)
(Note 2)
Level of
Service
(Note 2)
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound AM PM AM PM
L/T/R L/T/R L/T/R L/T/R
1 Monterey Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive TS 2/3/0 2/3/1 2/2/1 2/2/1 20.9 24.0 C C
2 Portola Avenue/Central Access CSS 1/3/0 0/2/1 0/0/1 0/0/0 10.7 10.0 B B
3 Shepherd Ln–N. Access/Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 0/0/1 0/0/1 1/2/0 0/2/d 12.5 11.5 B B
4 Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive TS 1/3/d 1/3/0 1/2/1 1/2/1 28.8 25.8 C C
5 Cook Street/Frank Sinatra Drive TS 2/2/0 2/3/1 2/2/1 2/2/1 16.4 30.0 B C
6 Portola Avenue/Retreat Circle (N) CSS 0/3/1 1/2/0 0/0/0 0/0/1 11.7 12.0 B B
7 Portola Avenue/Retreat Circle (S) CSS 0/3/0 0/2/0 0/0/0 0/0/1 11.6 12.2 B B
8 Portola Avenue/Willow Ridge CSS 0/2/1 1*/2/0 0/0/0 1/0/d 17.3 18.4 C C
9 Portola Avenue/Country Club Drive TS 1/2/1 1/2/d 1/2/1 1/2/1 41.3 39.2 D D
10 Portola Avenue/South Access CSS 0/3/0 0/2/0 0/0/1 0/0/0 10.6 10.0 B B
Item 3B - Page 361
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 88
11 Cook Street/University Park Drive TS 1/3/1>> 2/3/1 1/1/1 1/1/1 5.9 5.8 A A
4. When a right turn is designated, the land can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient for right turning
vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > >= Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane;
*=Turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane (TWLTL); 1=improvement
5. Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a
traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement
(or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 software
6. TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-Street Stop
Traffic Signal Warrants
For EAP (2024) traffic conditions, the unsignalized intersection of Portola Avenue/Willow Ridge is not
anticipated to warrant a traffic signal.
EAPC (2024) Conditions
A cumulative project list was developed for the purpose of this analysis. If applicable, the traffic generated by
individual cumulative projects was manually added to the Opening Year Cumulative forecasts to ensure that
traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects in Table XVII-9 are reflected as part of the
background traffic.
Table XVII-8 indicates that all project intersections will operate at LOD D or better under EAPC 2024
Conditions.
Table XVII-8 Intersection Analysis for EAPC (2024) Conditions
# Intersection Traffic
Control
(Note 3)
Intersection Approach Lanes
(Note 1)
Delay
(Secs)
(Note 2)
Level of
Service
(Note 2)
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound AM PM AM PM
L/T/R L/T/R L/T/R L/T/R
1 Monterey Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive TS 2/3/0 2/3/1 2/2/1 2/2/1 24.1 40.4 C D
2 Portola Avenue/Central Access CSS 1/3/0 0/2/1 0/0/1 0/0/0 11.5 10.8 B B
3 Shepherd Ln–N. Access/Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 0/0/1 0/0/1 1/2/0 0/2/d 13.6 12.7 B B
4 Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive TS 1/3/d 1/3/0 1/2/1 1/2/1 30.8 29.4 C C
5 Cook Street/Frank Sinatra Drive TS 2/2/0 2/3/1 2/2/1 2/2/1 19.5 41.0 B D
6 Portola Avenue/Retreat Circle (N) CSS 0/3/1 1/2/0 0/0/0 0/0/1 12.7 14.6 B B
7 Portola Avenue/Retreat Circle (S) CSS 0/3/0 0/2/0 0/0/0 0/0/1 12.2 13.6 B B
8 Portola Avenue/Willow Ridge CSS 0/2/1 1*/2/0 0/0/0 1/0/d 20.1 24.6 C C
9 Portola Avenue/Country Club Drive TS 1/2/1 1/2/d 1/2/1 1/2/1 45.4 44.4 D D
10 Portola Avenue/South Access CSS 0/3/0 0/2/0 0/0/1 0/0/0 11.4 10.8 B B
11 Cook Street/University Park Drive TS 1/3/1>> 2/3/1 1/1/1 1/1/1 16.4 11.0 B B
7. When a right turn is designated, the land can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient for right turning
vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > >= Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane;
*=Turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane (TWLTL); 1=improvement
8. Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a
traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement
(or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 software
9. TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-Street Stop
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Shared sidewalks will be constructed along the Project frontage, consistent with General Plan Roadway Cross-
sections. At each project access, a crosswalk should be provided perpendicular to the driveway (along the
major street). The sidewalk and crosswalk features provided in conjunction with development of this project
will connect residents to the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersections where safe street crossings are
accommodating with the existing traffic signal and crosswalks.
Item 3B - Page 362
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 89
The transit services which are closest to the site are currently provided along Cook Street and residents may
chose to utilize the existing sidewalk along Frank Sinatra Drive east of Portola Avenue to access these services.
Existing on-street bike lanes are generally located throughout the study area. Both roadways include on-street
bike lanes on each side of the street. Adjacent bike lanes may be temporarily impacted during project
construction. All existing bike lanes will be returned to their existing condition following construction
activities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
Traffic Signal Warrants
For EAPC (2024) traffic conditions, the unsignalized intersection of Portola Avenue/Willow Ridge is not
anticipated to warrant a traffic signal.
Congestion Management Plan
The proposed project is not anticipated to directly impact CMP facilities; however, it has the possibility of
indirectly impacting these facilities. Potential impacts associated with the project are expected to be offset by
fees, such as TUMF, required as Standard Conditions.
The applicant will participate in the funding or construction of off-site improvements through the payment of
TUMF and City of Palm Desert Development Impact Fees (DIF), or a fair share contribution as directed by the
City. These fees, required as standard conditions, assist in alleviating cumulative impacts.
Following the implementation of Standard Conditions and the payment of DIF and TUMF, the project is
expected to have less than significant impacts relative to an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the circulation system.
Mitigation Measures: None
Item 3B - Page 363
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 90
Table XVII-9 Cumulative Projects
Item 3B - Page 364
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 91
b) Less than Significant Impact. Urban Crossroads prepared a project specific Residential VMT Screening
Assessment (March 2002). Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted
in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay‐based
level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This
statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December
of 2018) (Technical Advisory).
The City of Palm Desert utilizes the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service and Vehicle Miles
Traveled, County of Riverside Transportation Department, December 2020, which sets forth screening criteria
under which Projects are not required to submit detailed VMT analysis. This guidance for determination of
non‐significant VMT impact is primarily intended to avoid unnecessary analysis and findings that would be
inconsistent with the intent of SB 743. VMT screening criteria for development projects include the following:
• Small Projects with low trip generation per existing CEQA exemptions or resulting in a 3,000 metric
tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent per year screening level threshold. Specific examples include Multi
Family (low rise) Housing projects less than or equal to 147 Dwelling Units. The small project screening
threshold is not met.
• Projects Near High-Quality Transit within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop and main a service
interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. The area
is served by Sunline Transit Agency, but bus service is outside of the immediate project vicinity. The high-
quality transit screening is not met.
• Affordable Housing with a high percentage of affordable units as determined by the Planning and
Engineering departments. The affordable housing screening is not met.
• Map-Based Screening eliminates the need for complex analyses by allowing existing VMT data to serve
as a basis for screening smaller residential developments. This screening is performed per the County
Guidelines. A project is presumed to have a less than significant impact is the area of development is under
the threshold as shown on the screening map. This screening eliminates the need for complex analyses by
allowing existing VMT data to serve as a basis for the screening of smaller residential projects.
Map‐based screening is performed using the map titled: RIVTAM Model (2012) Daily Residential Home Based
VMT per Capita Comparison to Riverside County Average. The map utilizes the sub‐regional Riverside
Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) to measure current VMT performance within individual
Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ’s) and compares them to the applicable impact threshold (e.g., VMT per
employee for office or industrial land uses and VMT per capita for residential land uses). The County Guidelines
define VMT per Capita as the sum of VMT for personal motorized trips made by all residents of a development
project, divided by the total number of residents of the project.
Exhibit XVII -2 shows the project area on the County’s VMT map combined with an overlay of the RIVTAM
TAZs. The Project is located within RIVTAM TAZ 4676, which experiences less than the County average
VMT / Capita. For projects that are found to reside in a low VMT generating TAZ, the analyst is also required
to verify that the underlying land use assumptions contained in the low VMT generating TAZ are consistent
with the proposed development project. Urban Crossroads reviewed the land use assumptions contained within
the Project TAZ (TAZ 4676), which were found to be consistent with the project’s residential land use. The
project is therefore eligible to be screened out based on map‐ based screening criteria. The map‐based screening
threshold is met. Less than significant impacts are anticipated related to VMT.
Item 3B - Page 365
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 92
Exhibit XVII -2 Project Area Daily Residential Home Based
VMT Per Capita Comparison to Riverside County Average
Item 3B - Page 366
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 93
c) Less than Significant Impact. A queuing analysis was performed for the EAPC (2024) Conditions to assess
the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the project entries. Turn pocket lengths
for project access intersections with exclusive turn lanes were estimated based on the updated peak hour
volumes.
For each of the turn lanes evaluated, the maximum of the AM or PM peak hour 95th percentile queue is
anticipated to be less than the storage length provided. The recommended turn bay lengths are anticipated to
provide adequate storage for the 95th percentile queue.
The project will not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. The project’s access points
will be located with adequate sight distances, and project-generated traffic will be consistent with existing
traffic in the area. The internal circulation system would provide adequate fire department. Sharp curves are
avoided by design guidelines.
A Traffic Control Plan may be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all
construction activities. This plan will work to reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with
construction traffic. Impacts will be less than significant. The project’s access points will be located with
adequate sight distances, and project-generated traffic will be consistent with existing traffic in the area.
The project is not anticipated to increase hazards due to geometric design feature or incompatible uses.
Following implementation of the recommendations within the TA, as well as the review and approval process
at the City of Palm Desert, impacts are less than significant without mitigation.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Access to the planning area is via Vehicular Oriented Arterials, Enhanced
Secondary Roadways and Balanced Arterials. Design guidelines further ensure that emergency access will be
created and reserved for the proposed project. Gated driveways will utilize a Knox-Box Rapid Entry System or
similar device to facilitate emergency access by fire fighters and other emergency first responders.
Both the Fire department and Police department will review project plans to ensure safety measures are
addressed, including design details of the access points. The proposed project will not result in inadequate
emergency access. The project is required to comply with the General Plan and the City’s design guidelines.
Review and approval by the City Engineer, Fire Department and Police Department will ensure less than
significant impacts.
Item 3B - Page 367
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 94
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial
Adverse change in the significance of a
Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resource Code Section 21074 as either
a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i)Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
Register of historical resources as defined
in Public Resource Code Section 5020.1(k), or;
ii)A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American Tribe.
Sources: Historical/Archaeological Resources Report, CRM Tech; City of Palm Desert General Plan.
a) Less than Significant Impact. As previously discussed in the Cultural Resources Section, CRM Tech
conducted a project and site-specific study on historical and archaeological resources. The assessment included
a records search, Native American scoping, historical background research and an intensive-level field survey.
The field survey produced negative results from both the historic and pre-historic period. Records searched
indicate that no additional cultural resource studies occurred within the project area between 2015 and 2018,
although a linear survey was reported to the EIC along the segment of Frank Sinatra Drive adjacent to the
northern project boundary. The data further indicate that no additional historical/archaeological resources have
been identified within the project area or within a half-mile radius. Site 33-005080 (CA-RIV-5080), a
prehistoric—i.e., Native American—ceramic scatter recorded approximately a quarter mile to the east, remains
the only known cultural resource within the half-mile scope of the records search. Since the resource is not
located in the immediate vicinity of the project area, it does not require further consideration during this study.
Therefore, less than significant impacts are expected.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Public Resource Code 21074 identifies “Tribal Cultural Resources” as “sites,
features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native
American Tribe” and that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion on the national, state, or
local register of historic resources, or that are determined by the lead agency, in its discretion, to be significant
when taking into consideration the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. To ensure
that all significant Tribal Resources are identified and fully considered, the City of Palm Desert initiated a 30-
day government to government Tribal consultation period with local Tribes. Requests for consultation were not
received within the required 30-day response period. Based on the analysis above, and the project and site-
specific study on historical and archaeological resources conducted by CRM Tech, less than significant impacts
to a tribal cultural resource are expected.
Mitigation Measure: None
Item 3B - Page 368
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 95
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS –
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonable foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
a) Less than Significant Impact. Domestic water for the proposed project would be provided to the project by
connecting into the existing water main and sewer main located along Frank Sinatra Drive. Water and sewer
would be brought to the site through a series of water service lines and s ewer laterals. Electric power,
telecommunication and natural gas connections are also located within proximity of the project’s boundary.
The project is designed with an on-site stormwater retention system that during the life of the project will
comply with the City’s drainage requirements by preventing site discharge and transport of untreated runoff.
The proposed storm drain system included facilities which have been preliminarily sized to provide enough
storage for the 100-year controlling storm event. Therefore, no new construction or new water, wastewater,
electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities will need to be constructed or relocated. Therefore,
less than significant impacts are expected.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Groundwater is the primary source of domestic water supply in the Coachella
Valley. CVWD is the largest provider of potable water in the Coachella Valley and currently provides potable
water to the City of Palm Desert. CVWD’s domestic water system has 64 pressure zones and consists of
approximately 97 groundwater production wells, 2,000 miles of pipe, and 133 million gallons of storage in 65
enclosed reservoirs. CVWD’s 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) has been developed
to assist the agency in reliably meeting current and future water demands in a cost-effective manner. The
comprehensive Water Management Plan guides efforts to eliminate overdraft, prevent groundwater level
decline, protect water quality, and prevent land subsidence.
Per CVWD’s 2020 RUWMP, the district had a 2020 target water use demand of 473 gpcd. The District’s 2015
actual per capita daily water use of 383 gpcd is currently 19 percent below the 2020 target of 473 gpcd. CVWD
has currently achieved its 2020 water use target but continues to implement demand management measures to
reduce per capita water use. Per the 2020 RUWMP, CVWD anticipates that future single family residences are
Item 3B - Page 369
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 96
expected to use less water than existing properties due to the mandated use of high efficiency plumbing fixtures
under the CalGreen building standards and reduced landscape water use mandated by CVWD’s Landscape
Ordinance.
The proposed project would connect into the existing infrastructure on Frank Sinatra Drive through on -site
improvements of 4” water lines and will comply with the existing water management program in place. The
addition of residential units will result in an increase to water supplies. It is estimated that a project of this size
could use 46,327 gallons per day (gpd) or 51.89 AFY.
CVWD’s 2020 RUWMP projected demands are shown in Table 4 -8. The demand projections in Table 4-8 are
for future municipal demands within CVWD’s jurisdictional boundary. Some of these areas are currently served
by private domestic wells and are not yet connected to the CVWD system. CVWD plans to consolidate and
provide service to these areas, but the timing will depend on the availability of grant funding. For planning
purposes, all municipal demands within the jurisdictional boundary are included beginning in 2025. The
estimated 51.89 AFY is below the total projected water use of 123,461 AFY projected for 2025. Additionally,
new development is accounted for in CVWD’s projected water use.
The 2020 RUWMP finds that within the CVWD service area, multi-family demand includes customers with
more than one dwelling unit such duplexes, triplexes, apartments, other multiple dwelling properties, and
mobile home and recreational vehicle parks served by a master meter. Many of these connections serve
properties that are used seasonally. Future multi-family residences are expected to use less water than existing
properties due to the mandated use of high efficiency plumbing fixtures under the CalGreen building standards
and reduced landscape water use mandated by CVWD’s Landscape Ordinance.
The City’s Municipal Code has several ordinances in place to ensure water supply and efficiency measures are
in place. Additionally, Section 24.04.010 of Palm Desert’s Municipal Code codifies CVWD’s water-efficient
landscape ordinance (in compliance with the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance). This ordinance requires landscape design that incorporates climate appropriate plant material and
efficient irrigation for all new and rehabilitated landscaping projects. Compliance with these ordinances will
ensure that future development reduces water demand to meet target demands.
The infrastructure and design components for the project will be consistent with CVWD requirements and water
management plan. The project will also be reviewed by CVWD and City staff to assure compliance with all
current and applicable requirements. The proposed development will be expected to implement water
conservation measures to reduce impacts to public water supplies. Additionally, water installation and
connection fees in place at the time of development will be collected by CVWD. Therefore, no new
Item 3B - Page 370
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 97
infrastructure will be required as a result of project implementation and less than significant impacts are
expected.
c) Less than Significant Impact. CVWD’s wastewater reclamation system collects and treats approximately 17
million gallons per day (MGD) from approximately 95,000 user accounts. The system consists of approximately
1,100 miles of collection piping and five wastewater reclamation plants (WRPs). Some areas within the CVWD
service area remain on septic systems. Additionally, CVWD treats nearly 6.3 billion gallons of wastewater a
year. The District operates six (6) water reclamation plants and maintains more than 1,000 miles of sewer
pipeline and more than thirty (30) lift stations that transport wastewater to the nearest treatment facility. CVWD
maintains 5 sewer lift stations within the City’s boundaries. Wastewater from the City is conveyed to CVWD’s
Cook Street Water Reclamation Plant No.10 (WRP-10), which treats an average of 10 mgd and has a capacity
of 18 mgd.
The proposed project would connect into the existing sewer main on Frank Sinatra Drive and provide waste
water services to the site through a series of private sewer laterals. The estimated sewer demand project for
the project is 32,430 gpd or 0.03 mgd (million gallons per day). This increase would be treated by WRP-10
and is within the treatment capacity of this plant.
The project will undergo review by CVWD and City staff to ensure wastewater capacity and compliance with
the current wastewater treatment requirements. Additionally, sewer and water installation and connection fees
in place at the time of development will be collected by CVWD. No new or expanded treatment facilities are
expected as a result of project implementation, or is the project expected to exceed wastewater capacity. Less
than significant impacts are expected.
d, e) Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste disposal and recycling services for the City of Palm Desert is
provided by Burrtec. Solid waste and recycling collected from the proposed project will be hauled to the Edom
Hill Transfer Station. Waste from this transfer station is then sent to a permitted landfill or recycling facility
outside of the Coachella Valley. These include Badlands Disposal Site, El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill and Lamb
Canyon Disposal Site. Cal-Recycle data indicates the Bandlands Disposal site has 7,800,000 cubic yards o f
remaining capacity, the El Sobrante Landfill has a remaining capacity of 3,884,470 tons of solid waste, and
Lamb Canyon Disposal has a remaining solid waste capacity of 19,242,950 cubic yards. Using the residential
solid waste generation factor of 0.41 tons per dwelling unit from the Riverside County EIR No. 521, the project
could generate up 162.36 tons of solid waste. This generation overstates the project’s actual waste efforts
because it does not factor in the required solid waste reduction efforts required by the state.
As part of its long-range planning and management activities, the Riverside County Waste Management
Department (RCWMD) ensures that Riverside County has a minimum of 15 years of capacity, at any time, for
future landfill disposal. The 15-year projection of disposal capacity is prepared each year by as part of the
annual reporting requirements for the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The most recent 15 -
year projection by the RCWMD indicates that no additional capacity is needed to dispose of countywide waste
through 2024, with a remaining disposal capacity of 28,561,626 tons in the year 2024 (County of Riverside
2015b).
In addition, all future development would be required to comply with the mandatory commercial and multi -
family recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341.
The project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines. Therefore, less than
significant impacts are expected relative to solid waste and applicable regulations.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Item 3B - Page 371
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 98
20. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water resources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; Palm Desert General Plan EIR, 2016; CAL FIRE High Fire Severity Zone Maps.
a-d) Less than Significant Impact. The project site currently resides in a primarily developed area within the City
of Palm Desert. The project site is currently characterized by vacant and undeveloped land with scattered, low-
lying desert vegetation. The project’s northern boundary is delineated by Frank Sinatra Drive. The eastern
boundary is delineated by Portola Avenue, and the western boundary is delineated by combination transmission
and distribution power poles and a Southern California Edison dirt-road easement, as well as two maintenance
buildings and associated parking lot at the southwest corner of the project. A residential neighborhood is located
north of the project; Desert Willow Golf Resort is located east of the project; and vacant land is located west of
the project. The approximately 18.3-acre project is proposing a residential community consisting of 394 units
and recreational amenities.
According to CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in State Responsibility Areas (SRA) Map, the
project site is not located in an SRA or located in an area classified as very high fire hazard severity zone. Per
CAL FIRE’s map, the project property is located in a (incorporated) Local Responsibility Area (LRA). The
project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high, high or moderate fire
hazard severity zones, therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
Wildfire risk is related to a number of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds,
temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents), and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes
contribute to fire hazards by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such
as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach
the ignition point. According to the Riverside County General Plan, wildfire s usceptibility is moderate to low
in the valley and desert regions on the western and eastern sides of the Salton Sea. Methods in which
developments address wildland fires hazards includes establishing setbacks that buffer development from
hazard areas, maintaining brush clearance to reduce potential fuel, use of low fuel landscaping, and use of fire-
resistant building techniques.
As previously stated, the project property is located in a developed area of the City. Thick vegetation, which
acts as wildfire fuel, does not occur in areas adjacent to the project. Additionally, the project is not located
adjacent to steep slopes. The closest slope to the project is occurs approximately 3.0 miles southwest of the
project, at the Santa Rosa Mountains. However, the Santa Rosa Mountains do not provide an environment
conducive to wildfires because of the sparce vegetation that occurs on the slopes. Therefore, a wildfire is not
expected to occur in the City and at the project site. The project site will be developed to the most current
Item 3B - Page 372
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 99
California building standards and fire code. As a result, the project site is not expected to expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
The project will connect to existing water and sewer infrastructure located within the Frank Sinatra Drive and
Portal Avenue. The proposed infrastructure would allow for a decrease of fire risk during operation of the
project. The development of this infrastructure will not exacerbate fire risk or result in short- or long-term
impacts to the environment. The project site will be connecting to an existing network of streets. The project
would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. The project is not expected to require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment.
Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such as the geological
conditions, drainage, slope, vegetation, and others affect the potential for landslides. One of the most common
causes of landslides is construction activity that is associated with road building. The site is located on flat
ground and, as previously stated, the closest slope to the project is located approximately 3.00 miles southwest;
therefore, risks associated with slope instability are not significant. As a result, the project is not expected to
expose people or structures to significant risks including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, due
to runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Overall, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Item 3B - Page 373
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 100
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Less than Significant Impact. As concluded in the Biological and Cultural Resources sections of this
document, the proposed project would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts to these resources.
The project is compatible with the City of Palm Desert General Plan and Zoning and its surroundings. The
project will not significantly degrade the overall quality of the region’s environment, or substantially reduce
the habitat of a wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Based upon
the information and mitigation measures provided within this Initial Study, approval and implementation of the
project is not expected to substantially alter or degrade the quality of the environment, including biological,
cultural or historical resources. Less than significant impacts are expected.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project and its location are found to be adequate and consistent
with existing federal, state and local policies and is consistent with the City of Palm Desert General Plan and
surrounding land use. Approval and implementation of the proposed project will result in less than significant
impacts related to cumulatively considerable impacts.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not result in impacts related to environmental effects
that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The project has been designed to comply with
established design guideline and current building standards. The City’s review process will ensure that
applicable guidelines are being followed. Mitigation measures and project design features incorporated into the
project will reduce impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Item 3B - Page 374
Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022/Page 101
REFERENCES
City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016
City of Palm Desert Draft Technical Background Report, August 2015
LADOT Transportation Impact Study Guidelines” December 2016
City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), August 2016
CVWD Development Design Manual, 2017
CVWD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates, 2022
Focused Traffic Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, January 2022
Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Apartment Complex, Sladden Engineering, May 2022
VMT Screening Assessment, prepared by Urban Crossroads, January 2022
Item 3B - Page 375
Frank Sinatra & Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Section
Number Mitigation Measures Responsible for
Monitoring Timing Impact after
Mitigation
4. Biological
Resources
BIO-1: Prior to construction and issuance of any
grading permit, the City of Palm Desert shall ensure
compliance with the CVMSHCP and its associated
Implementing Agreement and shall ensure that
payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development
Mitigation Fee for the proposed Project is sent to the
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission.
Developer
Planning
Department
Prior to
grading
permits
Less than
significant
BIO-2: The project proponent shall ensure that burrowing
owl clearance survey is performed not more than 14 days
prior to project site disturbance (clearing, grubbing,
grading, construction). If any owls are identified, the most
current protocol established by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (Burrowing Owl Mitigation) must be
followed. It is also recommended that a survey take place
24 hours prior to ground disturbance as burrowing owls
may colonize or recolonize the site within the time
between the original survey and project activities.
Developer
Planning
Department
Qualified Biologist
Prior to any
ground
disturbance
Less than
significant
Item 3B - Page 376
Frank Sinatra & Portola Multifamily Development
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2
Section
Number Mitigation Measures Responsible for
Monitoring Timing Impact after
Mitigation
7.
Geological
Resources
GEO-1: A qualified paleontologist shall be retained
and present during the first days of ground disturbing
activities. Once the paleontologist has had a chance
to assess the sediments and paleontological potential
of the project area, he/she may make a
recommendation to reduce the monitoring effort, as
appropriate, or continue with full time monitoring.
This decision shall be communicated along with the
rationalization to the City for their records.
Developer
Planning
Department
Qualified
Paleontologist
During
grading and
other ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
significant
Item 3B - Page 377
GENERAL BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
and
CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Hayes Dietrich
17-Acre Palm Desert Site
Located Within
SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST
(APN 620-400-031-6 and 620-400-030-5)
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
Prepared For:
Mr. Cody Dietrich
Hayes Dietrich, LLC
5021 Vernon Avenue, Suite 201
Edina, Minnesota 55436
Field Study and Report Completed By:
JAMES W. CORNETT
Ecological Consultant
P.O. Box 846
Palm Springs, California 92263
(760) 320-8135
March 10, 2022
Item 3B - Page 378
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 2
CONTENTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 1, Regional Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2, Area Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 3, Project Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figures 4-7, Project Site Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Site and Project Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Study Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Plant Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Animal Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Certification Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Special Status Terms Used in Report . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 1 - Plant List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 2 – Animal List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Item 3B - Page 379
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A proposed 17-acre residential development necessitated a biological survey and impact analysis
as required by the city of Palm Desert and California Environmental Quality Act. Most sensitive
species known to occupy the stabilized shielded sand fields habitat that characterizes the project
site are covered under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Impacts
to these species are mitigated by payment of a habitat acquisition fee. The current fee amount is
determined by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. This report focuses on species
and habitats not covered under the Plan.
Desert washes are not a covered habitat under the CVMSHCP. However, no blue-line stream
corridors or desert washes were found within the project boundaries. Therefore, no state or
federal streambed alteration permits are required.
Casey’s June beetle, a non-covered species and classified as Endangered by the federal
government, was not detected. The site is not within the recommended beetle survey area
established by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Therefore, no surveys within, or adjacent to,
project boundaries are necessary. The burrowing owl and other migratory bird species are
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and not functionally covered under the Plan. The
owl was not detected within or adjacent to the project boundaries. The habitat, however, is
suitable and this species could assume residence on site at any time. The California Department
of Fish & Wildlife recommends a burrowing owl clearance survey be conducted not more
than 14-days prior to grading, grubbing or other site disturbance. The site is not considered
a significant resource for any other migratory bird species.
The loggerhead shrike, a California Species of Special Concern, is not covered under the Plan.
The shrike was not observed nor detected during biological surveys. No breeding habitat for this
species was found within the project boundaries. Therefore, no future surveys for this species are
recommended.
Though the desert tortoise is a covered species under the CVMSHCP, clearance surveys to
relocate tortoises to alternate locations are necessary prior to site disturbance. Focused, protocol-
level surveys, however, revealed no evidence of the desert tortoise within the project site and,
therefore, no clearance surveys are necessary.
The project site is not within, or immediately adjacent to, a Conservation Area as shown in the
CVMSHCP.
Following the implementation of the required and recommended mitigation described in this
report, development of the project site is not expected to have significant adverse impacts upon
sensitive species or other biological resources on or adjacent to the project site.
Item 3B - Page 380
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 4
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 8, 2022, James W. Cornett - Ecological Consultant, was retained by Mr. Cody
Dietrich of Hayes Dietrich, LLC, to conduct a biological survey and analysis on a 17-acre site
located along Portola Avenue in the city of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. The
project site lies within Section 4, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Baseline and
Meridian. Assessor parcel numbers are 620-400-031-6 and 620-400-030-5. The regional location
is shown in Figure 1, area location in Figure 2 and specific location with project boundaries in
Figure 3. Site photographs are shown in Figures 4-7.
This study was included as part of an environmental assessment mandated by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the city of Palm Desert. The biological survey and
impact analysis were designed to ascertain the impacts of development on the biological
resources of the project site and immediate vicinity.
Specific purposes of the biological surveys and impact analysis are listed below.
1. Determine the vascular plant and vertebrate animal species that occur on, and
immediately adjacent to, the project site.
2. Ascertain the presence of plant or animal species given special status by government
agencies. Emphasis is on non-covered species (under the CVMSHCP) that are (1) state or
federally listed, (2) candidates for state or federal listing, and (3) state or federally
protected species or communities.
3. Ascertain the existence of other significant biotic elements, corridors, or communities.
4. Consider the site’s biological resources as they relate to the CVMSHCP and its
Conservation Areas.
5. If necessary and where applicable, recommend measures to mitigate significant adverse
impacts of the project on sensitive species and habitats not covered in the Plan but
determined to occur within, or adjacent to, the project boundaries.
Item 3B - Page 381
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 5
Item 3B - Page 382
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 6
Item 3B - Page 383
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 7
Item 3B - Page 384
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 8
Item 3B - Page 385
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 9
II. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Climate
The project area lies within the confines of a geographical region known as the Colorado Desert
(Jaeger, 1957). As is typical of this subdivision of the Sonoran Desert, annual rainfall averages
just under five inches (National Climatic Center, 2021). Most precipitation falls during the
winter and late spring with occasional summer storms accounting for approximately one-fifth the
annual total. Winter days are mild, averaging 71 degrees Fahrenheit. Winter nights occasionally
drop to near freezing. July brings the hottest temperatures with daytime highs averaging 109
degrees F.
Physical Features
The elevation of the project site is approximately 275 feet above sea level. There is no
topographical relief. The environment of the project site is included as part of the sand field
habitat of the valley floor as described in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan.
No naturally occurring springs or permanent aquatic habitats occur in or near the project site. No
blue-line stream corridors (streams or dry washes) are shown on U.S. Geological Survey maps
for the project site nor are there botanical indicators of such corridors. Thus, there appears to be
no need to obtain streambed alteration permits from state or federal governments.
Soil characteristics are uniform over the entire site. Soil is composed of wind-blown alluvium
created by historic and persistent air movements from the northwest. This process increased in
intensity with the drying out of the Coachella Valley at the close of the Pleistocene epoch ending
10,000 years before present. At the current time, residential and commercial developments to the
west and north have resulted in sand stabilization on the site.
Surrounding Lands
The project site and its immediate area are surrounded to the north, south, east, and west by
residential developments (see Figures 2 and 3). The only possible source for native plant or
animal dispersal to and from the project site would originate from the northeast where relatively
undisturbed creosote scrub habitat persists. It is unlikely, however, that any consequential
movement of plant and terrestrial animal species could successfully cross the often-busy
intersection of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive. The site is essentially an ecological
island as of 2022.
Item 3B - Page 386
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 10
Existing Impacts
Due to the paucity of mature creosote shrubs, it appears most of the site has been graded within
the last twenty years.
Off-road vehicle tracks, impacting less than 10% of the site, were noted within the project
boundaries.
Refuse was found on approximately 2% of the site area.
Noise from Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, often-busy thoroughfares, was distinctive
and distracting during daylight and early evening hours.
A windbreak fence has been installed along Portola Avenue.
A golf course occupied the property to the immediate west until 2015 when it was abandoned.
Project Description
The project proponent intends to grade the entire site and erect a variety of residential units.
Item 3B - Page 387
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 11
III. STUDY METHODS
Prior to the initiation of field work, reviews of the literature and institutional records were
conducted to determine the biological resources that might exist within the general area and to
determine the possible occurrence of special-status species. Records, collections, websites and/or
staff of the University of California at Riverside Herbarium, the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert
Research Center and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments were consulted for
specific information as to the occurrence of special-status species. The California Department of
Fish & Game Natural Diversity Database was also consulted.
Field surveys were initiated in February of 2022. Specific dates of biological surveys were
February 9, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, and March 5 and 6, 2022. Night surveys were conducted on the
evenings of March 5 and 6, 2022.
Survey dates were in late winter and early spring when both perennial and ephemeral plant
species and resident vertebrate species were likely to be detected. Reducing the likelihood that
any species would be detected was the existence of an unusually dry winter in 2021-2022.
Drought dictates against the germination of ephemeral plant species and reproduction and
survival of all animal species. Despite the severe winter drought, it was concluded the
phenomenon did not change findings in this report because (1) species have been previously
recorded at other locations in the area and/or (2) there is no historical information available that
contradicts the findings and conclusions of the field surveys and literature review.
Surveys were conducted by walking north/south transects at 10-yard intervals through the project
site. Surrounding properties were privately owned and permission was not granted to enter those
properties. Nevertheless, binocular surveys were conducted from the project site across the
vacant land immediately west of the project site (an abandoned golf course). The survey pattern
used is approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for determining the presence or absence of
the burrowing owl and desert tortoise and represents an intensive survey effort that resulted in no
officially listed or federally protected species being overlooked within the project boundaries
(see Results section).
Plant surveys were conducted simultaneously with animal surveys. In addition, twenty
live-animal traps (which capture animals unharmed) for large and small mammals were set
within the project site for twenty-four-hour periods on March 5 and 6, 2022.
To determine if large animal corridors existed on the project site special attention was given to
observing and identifying animal tracks. In addition, sand sifting and smoothing was done in four
areas so that tracks would be more prominent and identifiable. Road kills on Portola Avenue and
Frank Sinatra Driver were monitored on each site visit.
Item 3B - Page 388
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 12
Invertebrate sampling was conducted on the evenings of March 6 and 7, 2022. Two Bioquip
Light Traps were used for attracting and live-capturing flying insects and some terrestrial
arthropods. Black lights were the attracting mechanism with each trap powered by a 12-volt
automobile battery.
Though scientific name changes occur as new discoveries are made in plant and animal
taxonomy, the scientific names used in this report are taken from the standard and most available
references describing the species found in the desert regions of Southern California—Bruce G.
Baldwin’s The Jepson Manual (Second Edition) published in 2012; D. P. Tibor's Inventory of
rare and endangered vascular plants of California published in 2001; R. A. Stebbins and S. M.
McGinnis’ Field guide to amphibians and reptiles of California published in 2012; Peterson's
Bird of North America published in 2008; and E. W. Jameson’s and H. J. Peeters’ California
mammals published in 2004. Plant common names used in this report were taken from Baldwin
(2012), Jaeger (1969) and Tibor (2001). Animal common names are taken from Stebbins and
McGinnis (2012), Peterson (2008) and Jameson and Peeter (2004).
Fieldwork was conducted by James Cornett (M.S.) and Blake Gonzales (B.A.). Plant
identifications were made by Andrew Sanders (B.S.) and Mr. Cornett. Animal remains were
identified by Mr. Cornett. The literature review was conducted by Terry Belknap (B.S.). The
report was written by Mr. Cornett.
Item 3B - Page 389
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 13
IV. PLANT SURVEY RESULTS
A single plant association or community was found on site: the Sonoran creosote bush scrub
community as described by Sawyer Keeler-Wolf (1995).
Sonoran creosote bush scrub community dominates vegetation of the natural landscapes in the
area and is the pervasive plant community throughout the Colorado Desert of southeastern
California. The creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) is the most conspicuous perennial. Other
species noted within the project site boundaries include bugseed (Dicoria canescens), Emory's
Dalea (Dalea emoryi), croton (Croton californicus) and wingscale (Atriplex canescens). A
complete listing of vascular plants is found in Table 1.
Native and exotic weed species, mostly expired, occur over of the entire site but particularly in
disturbed areas such as road shoulders and property borders. These species include Sahara
mustard (Brassica tournefortii), bugseed (Dicoria canescens) and Schismus grass (Schismus
barbatus). These species are often found throughout the Colorado Desert of southeastern
California whenever natural vegetation has been damaged or removed.
The Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, published by the California
Native Plant Society (2001), the CNDDB Special Plant List (2014) or the Endangered,
Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (2014) lists a total of five plant species that could
conceivably occur on the project site. They are the glandular ditaxis (Ditaxis clariana), ribbed
cryptantha (Cryptantha costata), flat-seeded spurge (Chamaesyce platysperma), Coachella
Valley milk vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus coachellae), and Salton milkvetch (Astragalus
crotalareiae).
1. The glandular ditaxis, Ditaxis clariana, is a rare perennial herb that blooms from December
through March. It is restricted to sandy environments in the Sonoran Desert and has been found
in the Coachella Valley at elevations like those found on the project site. Since the glandular
ditaxis is a perennial, it likely would be detected during the plant surveys. It was not detected and
therefore presumed to not occur onsite. This species is not listed as rare, threatened, or
endangered by either the state or federal governments nor is it proposed to be listed at this time.
Though considered sensitive by the California Native Plant Society, the glandular ditaxis is not a
covered species under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(CVMSHCP) .
2. The ribbed cryptantha is an uncommon ephemeral known to occur on sandy soils in the
Coachella Valley. The project site can be considered suitable habitat for this species. It was not
detected but the surveys were conducted in late winter and early spring during a drought cycle,
so it is unlikely this species would be detected. The ribbed cryptantha is not listed as rare,
Item 3B - Page 390
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 14
threatened or endangered by either the state or federal governments nor is it proposed to be listed
at this time. The California Native Plant Society considers the ribbed cryptantha a sensitive
species. It is not a covered species under the CVMSHCP.
3. The flat-seeded spurge is an extremely rare ephemeral herb known to occur on sandy soils in
the Sonoran Desert. There has been at least one specimen found in the Coachella Valley. The
species was not detected but the surveys were conducted in late winter and early spring during a
drought cycle so it is unlikely this species would be detected. The flat-seeded spurge is not listed
as rare, threatened or endangered by either the state or federal governments nor is it proposed to
be listed at this time. The California Native Plant Society considers it a sensitive species. It is not
covered under the CVMSHCP.
4. The Coachella Valley milk vetch is an uncommon, spring-blooming ephemeral herb that is
known to occur on sandy soils in the Coachella Valley. It is known to occur within one mile of
the project site (Cornett, personal files). The milk vetch is listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service. It has no formal state status. Impacts to the milk vetch are fully mitigated by
the CVMSHCP through the payment of the Plan mitigation fee. No further action is necessary
regarding this species.
5. The Salton milkvetch (Astragalus crotalariae) is a perennial herb found in the Sonoran Desert
of California and Arizona. No individuals, evidence or records of the Salton milkvetch were
found on or near the project boundaries. The Salton milkvetch is neither state nor federally listed.
It is a rare plant usually encountered on sandy or gravelly soils below 1,000 feet in elevation.
Though considered sensitive by the California Native Plant Society it is not a covered species
under the CVMSHCP.
A complete list of vascular plant species found within the project boundaries has been placed in
Table 1 of the Appendix. Planted ornamental species are not included within this list. Taxonomic
nomenclature follows Baldwin (2012). Common names are taken from Jaeger (1969), Baldwin
(2012), Munz (1974) or Tibor (2001).
Item 3B - Page 391
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 15
V. ANIMAL SURVEY RESULTS
The fauna of the project site and surrounding vicinity is composed of species typical of
disturbed, sandy, and windswept habitats in the Coachella Valley portion of the Colorado
Desert, as defined by Jaeger (1957). Animal species associated with residential subdivisions
were also recorded from the site.
Arthropods
Encountered arthropods on the site included the harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex californicus),
sand scorpion (Paruroctonus mesaensis), Eleodes beetle (Eleodes armata) and honeybee (Apis
mellifera).
Three insect species known to occur within the Coachella Valley have been placed on the
California Department of Fish and Game’s Special Animals list. They are the Coachella giant
sand treader cricket (Macrobaenetes valgum), Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket
(Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis) and Coachella Valley grasshopper (Spaniacris deserticola). None
of these three insect species were found during the surveys and none have any official status with
governmental agencies. The Coachella giant sand treader cricket and Jerusalem cricket are
covered species under the Plan.
Amphibians and Reptiles
No amphibian species were found during the surveys, and none are expected.
Detected reptiles included the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) and western whiptail
(Cnemidophorus tigris).
The officially threatened Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata) was not detected
and is not expected due to historical grading of the site. In any event, impacts to the fringe-toed
lizard are fully mitigated by the payment of a habitat acquisition fee as required under the Plan.
A concerted effort was made to find sign of the officially listed desert tortoise (Goperhus
agassizi). However, no evidence of any kind was found, and no direct observations were made.
In addition, the California Natural Diversity Database has no records of the tortoise on or within
one mile of the project site. It is concluded this species does not occur within the project site and
immediate vicinity and no additional surveys for this species are recommended.
An intensive effort was made to find individuals or sign of the flat-tailed horned lizard,
Phrynosoma mcallii. No observations or evidence of this species within the project boundaries
Item 3B - Page 392
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 16
were recorded. Additionally, the site is considered unsuitable habit for the horned lizard due to
historical grading of the site. Impacts to the horned lizard are fully mitigated under the Plan.
Birds
Detected birds within the project area were the Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), American kestrel
(Falco sparverius), common raven (Corvus corax), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and
house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus).
No observations of LeConte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) were recorded during surveys. In
the Coachella Valley this species is associated with golden cholla, an arborescent cactus that
provides a nesting site for the thrasher. The cactus species was not found onsite and, therefore, it
was concluded the thrasher does not occupy the project site. LeConte’s thrasher is a covered
species under the Plan.
Two functionally non-covered and sensitive avian species were possible occupants of the project
site and vicinity: the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus).
Burrowing Owl
An intensive survey for the burrowing owl was undertaken following protocols established by
state and federal governments. No observations of the owl were recorded, and no evidence of its
presence was found. The habitat of the project site is suitable for the owl and active burrows of
the species have been found several times within two miles of the project site (Cornett, personal
files). Because the project site habitat is considered suitable and owls are known to occur in the
immediate area, it was concluded that the burrowing owl could assume residence on the site at
any time. The burrowing owl is not functionally covered under the Plan.
Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike, a state Species of Special Concern, was not observed nor detected on or
near the project site. The project site is not considered suitable breeding habitat for the shrike due
to the absence of large, dense shrubs or trees. The shrike is not a covered species under the Plan.
Mammals
Recorded mammals included the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Palm Springs
Item 3B - Page 393
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 17
ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus) and coyote (Canis latrans). No individuals
of the Palm Springs Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi), a covered species, were
found.
No individuals of the desert kit fox (Vulpes macrotis arsipus) were seen or detected on or near
the project site. Human activity in the area is the likely explanation for its absence. The desert kit
fox is fully protected in California and is not a covered species under the Plan.
The Palm Springs Ground Squirrel is the only mammalian covered species discovered within the
project boundaries. It was detected twice (burrows) and should be expected throughout the
project site as the habitat is suitable. It currently is not a listed species and has a much broader
range than was previously thought (Federal Register, 2009). It is, therefore, unlikely that it will
be listed in the near future. It is a covered species under the Plan and impacts to the squirrel are
mitigated by the payment of the required habitat acquisition fee.
Wildlife Corridors
Smoothing of surfaces to yield tracks was performed on each site visit to determine if important
wildlife corridors existed on the site. Tracks of ravens, roadrunners and coyotes were recorded.
However, no discernable and routinely used corridors could be found.
A complete list of vertebrate species seen or detected on the project site can be found in Table 2
of the Appendix.
Item 3B - Page 394
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 18
VI. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An intensive plant and animal survey was conducted within the proposed project boundaries. No
evidence of the federally endangered Coachella Valley milk vetch was found onsite though
known from the general region. The Palm Springs ground squirrel was detected within the site
boundaries. Both of the above organisms are covered under the Coachella Valley Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation for impacts to these species is accomplished
through the payment of a fee to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. Fees vary
depending upon the use to which the land is put, acreage, and density. Contact the Coachella
Valley Association of Governments to determine current fees.
The remaining comments are restricted to those species or habitats not covered under the
CVMSHCP or that are not functionally covered.
Casey’s June Beetle
Though Casey’s June beetle is known to occur in the Coachella Valley, trapping surveys did not
detect this species. Thus far, this officially endangered, non-covered species has not been found
east of Cathedral City. Therefore, no further surveys are recommended for Casey’s June beetle
and no mitigation is needed or recommended.
Desert Tortoise
Though the desert tortoise is a covered species under the CVMSHCP, clearance surveys for the
tortoise can still be required by the United State Fish & Wildlife Service prior to grubbing,
grading or other site disturbance. The desert tortoise occurs in the Coachella Valley but is not
currently known to be present on the valley floor. Observations have been on upper bajadas
surrounding the valley. In keeping with this distribution pattern, protocol-level surveys revealed
no evidence of the desert tortoise within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no additional
surveys or actions regarding this species are recommended or required.
Item 3B - Page 395
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 19
Desert Dry Wash Woodland
No bodies of standing water, no streams and no washes (as indicated by wash plant species) are
present on site. Therefore, streambed alteration permits from state or local agencies should not be
necessary.
CVMSHCP and Conservation Areas
The project site is not within a Conservation Area as shown in the CVMSHCP. Additionally, the
site does not abut a Conservation Area. Therefore, the project is not subject to Plan requirements
regarding lands adjoining Conservation Areas.
Indirect Impacts
The project site is surrounded by highly disturbed environments including busy thoroughfares
and residential developments. As a result, the site is essentially an ecological island with likely
little significant biological interaction with natural habitats elsewhere in the Coachella Valley.
Therefore, it is concluded the development of the project site will have no significant indirect
impacts to biological resources in the region.
Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl was not seen nor detected on or near project site boundaries. However, site
habitat is considered suitable for this species and the owl is known to breed in the area. The
burrowing owl could assume residence on the site at any time. For this reason, the State of
California recommends in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (March 7, 2012), that a
clearance survey for this species occur not more than 14 days prior to grading, grubbing or other
site disturbance.
Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike is not a covered species under the Plan and is a state Species of Special
Concern. However, as the project site is not considered suitable breeding habitat for the shrike,
no additional surveys are recommended for this species.
Item 3B - Page 396
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 20
Mitigation Summary
1. Contact CVAG to determine precise mitigation fees applicable under the CVMSHCP.
2. Conduct a burrowing owl clearance survey not more than 14 days prior to site disturbance.
Conclusion
Development of the proposed project site is not expected to have significant adverse impacts
upon biological resources in the region providing the mitigation described in this report is
implemented.
Item 3B - Page 397
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 21
VII. REFERENCES
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti and D. H. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual:
Vascular Plants of California. (Second Edition) University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
California Department of Fish & Game. November 2021. Natural Diversity Database.
California Department of Fish & Game. 2021. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Natural Resources
Agency, State of California.
California Department of Fish & Game Special Animals Report (2021). Natural Resources Agency, State of
California.
California Department of Fish & Wildlife. 2021. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare
Plants of California. Naturel Resources Agency, State of California.
Coachella Valley Association of Governments. 2006. The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan. Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Palm Desert, California.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17. Federal
Register Vol. 74, No. 215.
Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Society, Los Angeles, CA.
Helix Environmental Planning. 2010. Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,
Palm Springs, California.
Jaeger, E. C. 1957. The North American deserts. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Jaeger, E. C. 1969. Desert wildflowers. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Jameson, E. W. Jr. and H. J. Peeters. 2004. Mammals of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Munz, P. A. 1974. Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
National Climatic Data Center. 2020. Climatic summaries, Asheville, North Carolina.
Peterson, R. T. 2008. Peterson field guide to birds of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New
York.
Sawyer, J. O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society,
Sacramento, California.
Stebbins, R. C. and S. M. McGinnis. 2012. Field guide to amphibians and reptiles of California. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Tibor, D. P. (editor). 2001. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California. California Native Plant Society,
Sacramento, California.
Zabriskie, J. G. 1979. Plant of Deep Canyon. Philip Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center, University of
California, Riverside.
Item 3B - Page 398
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 22
VIII. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I, James W. Cornett, hereby certify the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits
present the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts,
statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
March 10, 2022 ________________________________________
Date Principal Investigator
Item 3B - Page 399
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 23
APPENDIX
Item 3B - Page 400
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 24
Species Status Terms Used in This Report
State, Federal, Tribal and local governments, and occasionally private conservation
organizations, determine certain plant and animal species are in need of special protection
because their numbers are declining, and extinction may be likely. Collectively, such species are
referred to as special-status species.
Species or subspecies officially classified as Endangered are in imminent danger of becoming
extinct. State and federal endangered species laws require that government agencies take direct
steps to prevent further decline in the numbers of each endangered species. Persons or companies
wishing to develop land on which endangered animal species occur will be required to mitigate
adverse impacts to the endangered species so that there is no reduction in numbers and no net
loss of the species’ habitat. Mitigation may take the form of avoiding development on that part of
the site inhabited by the species, acquiring habitat for the species elsewhere (accomplished by
the CVMSHCP) or, in rare instances, relocating the project to an alternate site. In certain
instances, an endangered species may be adversely impacted even though it does not actually
occur on site. If such a finding is made, mitigation will likely be required.
Species or subspecies officially classified as Threatened are likely to become endangered if
action is not forthcoming from government agencies. These species are not in imminent danger
of becoming extinct and there is more time to find ways to prevent their extinction. Mitigation
requirements for threatened species are the same as those for endangered species.
The state of California has an additional classification known as Species of Special Concern. In
brief, these are plant and animal species whose numbers may be declining or who status may be
in jeopardy but there is insufficient data to formerly classify them as threatened or endangered.
Mitigation for these species can be required under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) but is not automatic.
Governmental agencies sometimes erect Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) that protect selected
Covered species. Specific mitigation for Covered species may not be required under such a plan.
However, occasionally Covered species may not be functionally covered because state or
federal agencies have refused to allow the taking of such species despite an approved HCP.
If officially threatened or endangered species not fully covered under an HCP are adversely
impacted by a development the project proponents should expect to meet with staff of the United
States Fish & Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish & Game to review and
decide upon mitigation alternatives.
Item 3B - Page 401
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 25
TABLE 1
PLANT SPECIES RECORDED
PALM DESERT 17-ACRE SITE
ANGIOSPERMAE – DICOTYLEDONES
ASTERACEAE - SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Conyza canadensis - Horseweed
Dicoria canescens - Desert Dicoria
Encelia farinosa - Brittlebush
Hymenoclea salsola - Cheese-bush
Lepidospartum squamatum – Scale-Broom
Palafoxia arida - Spanish Needle
Stephanomeria exigua - Mitra
BORAGINACEAE - BORAGE FAMILY
Cryptantha micrantha - Purple-rooted Forget-me-not
Tiquilia plicata - Plicate Coldenia
BRASSICACEAE - MUSTARD FAMILY
Brassica tournefortii - Sahara Mustard
CHENOPODIACEAE - GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Atriplex canescens – Wingscale
Salsola tragus - Russian Thistle
EUPHORBIACEAE - SPURGE FAMILY
Croton californicus - Desert Croton
Chamaesyce polycarpa - Sand-mat
FABACEAE - PEA FAMILY
Psorothamnus emoryi - Emory Dalea
GERANIACEAE - GERANIUM FAMILY
Erodium cicutarium – Filaree
NYCTAGINACEAE - FOUR-O'CLOCK FAMILY
Abronia villosa - Hairy Sand-Verbena
Item 3B - Page 402
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 26
PLANTAGINACEAE - Plantain Family
Plantago ovata - Woolly Plantain
ZYGOPHYLLACEAE - CALTROP FAMILY
Larrea tridentata - Creosote Bush
ANGIOSPERMAE - MONOCOTYLEDONES
POACEAE - GRASS FAMILY
Bromus madritensis - Foxtail Grass
Cynodon dactylon – Bermuda Grass
Schismus barbatus - Abu-mashi
Item 3B - Page 403
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 27
TABLE 2
EXPECTED BREEDING OR OBSERVED VERTEBRATES
PALM DESERT 17-ACRE SITE
REPTILES
GEKKONIDAE - GECKOS
Coleonyx variegatus - Western Banded Gecko
IGUANIDAE - IGUANIDS
Dipsosaurus dorsalis - Desert Iguana
Urosaurus graciosus - Long-Tailed Bush Lizard
Uta stansburiana - Side-Blotched Lizard *
TEIIDAE - WHIPTAILS
Cnemidophorus tigris - Western Whiptail *
LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE - BLIND SNAKES
Leptotyphlops humilis - Western Blind Snake
COLUBRIDAE - COLUBRIDS
Chionactis occipitalis - Western Shovel-nosed Snake ?
VIPERIDAE - VIPERS
Crotalus cerastes – Sidewinder ?
Item 3B - Page 404
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 28
BIRDS
ACCIPITRIDAE - OSPREY, HAWKS, EAGLES
Buteo jamaicensis - Red-Tailed Hawk *
FALCONIDAE - FALCONS
Falco sparverius - American Kestrel *
COLUMBIDAE - PIGEONS AND DOVES
Columba livia - Rock Dove *
Zenaida macroura - Mourning Dove *
CUCULIDAE - CUCKOOS
Geococcyx californianus - Greater Roadrunner *
TROCHILIDAE - HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte costae - Costa's Hummingbird *
TYRANNIDAE - TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Sayornis saya - Say's Phoebe *
CORVIDAE - CROWS AND JAYS
Corvus corax - Common Raven *
MIMIDAE - MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS
Mimus polyglottos - Northern Mockingbird *
STURNIDAE - STARLINGS
Sturnus vulgaris - European Starling *
ICTERIDAE – BLACKBIRDS AND ORIOLES
Euphagus cyanocephalus - Brewer's Blackbird *
Quiscalus mexicanus – Great-tailed Grackle *
PARULIDAE – WOOD-WARBLERS
Dendroica coronata – Yellow-Rumped Warbler *
Vermivora celata – Orange-Crowned Warbler *
Wilsonia pusilla – Wilson’s Warbler *
Item 3B - Page 405
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 29
EMBERIZIDAE WOOD WARBLERS, TANAGERS, SPARROWS
Zonotrichia leucophrys – White-crowned Sparrow *
PLOCEIDAE - WEAVER FINCHES
Passer domesticus - House Sparrow *
FRINGILLIDAE - FINCHES
Carpodacus mexicanus - House Finch *
Item 3B - Page 406
Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert Bio Study Page 30
MAMMALS
VESPERTILIONIDAE - EVENING BATS
Pipistrellus hesperus - Western Pipistrelle *
LEPORIDAE - HARES AND RABBITS
Lepus californicus - Black-tailed Jackrabbit *
Sylvilagus audubonii - Audubon Cottontail *
SCIURIDAE - SQUIRRELS
Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus – Palm Springs Ground Squirrel *
GEOMYIDAE - POCKET GOPHERS
Thomomys bottae - Botta Pocket Gopher
CRICETIDAE - DEER MICE AND WOODRATS
Peromyscus maniculatus - Deer Mouse *
MURIDAE – RATS, MICE, VOLES
Mus musculus – House Mouse *
CANIDAE - FOXES, WOLVES, AND COYOTES
Canis latrans - Coyote *
* = Sign or individual observed on site
? = Possible occurrence on or near site; not detected during surveys
Item 3B - Page 407
Tel: 909 824 6400 Fax: 909 824 6405
May 17, 2022
Cody Dietrich, President of Development
Hayes Dietrich, LLC
5021 Vernon Avenue, Suite 201
Edina, MN 55436
Re: Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Studies
Frank Sinatra and Portola Development, APNs 620-400-030 and 620-400-031
City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
CRM TECH Project No. 3834
Dear Mr. Dietrich:
At your request, we have completed a cultural resources study on approximately 18.31 acres of
undeveloped land in the northern portion of the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California.
The subject property of the study consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 620-400-030 and 620-400-
031, located on the southwestern corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive, in the northwest
quarter of Section 4, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian
(Figures 1, 2).
The study is a part of the environmental review process for a proposed residential development
project on the property. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead agency for the project, required the
study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the
study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the
project would cause a substantial adverse change to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA,
that may exist in the project area.
As you know, the project area was previously the subject of a standard Phase I cultural resources
survey that our firm completed in 2006 (see Attachment A). The scope of that study included a
historical/archaeological resources records search, historical background research, Native American
consultation, and an intensive-level field survey. Throughout the course of these research
procedures, no “historical resources” were identified within or adjacent to the project boundaries
(see Attachment A, pp. 9-10).
In 2015, the project area was included in a 96.75-acre survey that our firm conducted using similar
research procedures, which also yielded negative results for “historical resources” (see Attachment
B). During the field survey in 2015, scattered remnants of an irrigation system of indeterminate age
were noted along the western edge of the current project area, such as concrete pipelines, standpipes,
a capped well, and the foundation for a pump (see Attachment B, p. 11).
Since no agricultural activities occurred at this location during the historic period, the origin of these
features was thought to have been likely associated with the development of the former Santa Rosa
Golf Club on the adjacent land to the west, which opened in 1978, or the Palm Desert Greens Golf
Item 3B - Page 408
2
Figure 1. Project location. (Based on USGS Cathedral City, La Quinta, Myoma, and Rancho Mirage, Calif., 1:24,000
quadrangles)
Item 3B - Page 409
3
Figure 2. Recent satellite image of the project area. (Based on Google Earth imagery)
Item 3B - Page 410
4
Course further to the west, which dates to sometime between 1958 and 1972 (see Attachment B, p.
11). Ultimately, the 2015 study concludes:
In any event, such fragmented remains of the agricultural infrastructure, virtually ubiquitous
in rural and formerly rural areas throughout southern California, demonstrate little potential
for historic significance and generally require no further study. (See Attachment B, p. 11)
As both of the previous surveys involving the project area are now considered out of date for CEQA-
compliance purposes, the present study was designed and implemented to update and reexamine
their findings and conclusions. Research procedures completed during this study include a review of
more recent historical/archaeological records searches conducted on nearby properties, a Sacred
Lands Files search at the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a
systematic field inspection of the project area. A summary of the methods and results of these
procedures is presented below, along with the final conclusion of the study.
Due to substantial delays caused by facility closure during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new records
search was not obtained for this study from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California
Historical Resources Information System. Instead, the results of records searches for two studies
carried out on properties within a one-mile radius in 2018 were examined for pertinent information.
Since the EIC has not updated its collection since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, the
coverage was considered to be adequate for this study.
These data indicate that no additional cultural resources studies occurred within the project area
between 2015 and 2018, although a linear survey was reported to the EIC along the segment of
Frank Sinatra Drive adjacent to the northern project boundary. The data further indicate that no
additional historical/archaeological resources have been identified within the project area or within a
half-mile radius. Site 33-005080 (CA-RIV-5080), a prehistoric—i.e., Native American—ceramic
scatter recorded approximately a quarter-mile to the east, remains the only known cultural resource
within the half-mile scope of the records search.
On February 3, 2022, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the NAHC for information in the
Sacred Lands File pertaining to any known Native American cultural resources in the project
vicinity. As during the 2006 and 2015 surveys, the NAHC’s reply states that the Sacred Lands File
identified no such resources in or near the project area but refers to local Native American groups for
further inquiries (see Attachment C). The entire response from the NAHC, including the referral list
for local Native American representatives, is attached to this report for reference by the City of Palm
Desert in future government-to-government consultations with the pertinent tribal groups, if
necessary (see Attachment C).
The field inspection of the project area was conducted on February 28, 2022, by CRM TECH field
director Daniel Ballester, M.S. The survey was completed at a reconnaissance level by walking a
series of parallel north-south transects spaced 25 meters (approximately 75 feet) apart. Ground
visibility was excellent (90-100%) over the entire project area due to the sparse vegetation growth
(Figure 3). As in the past surveys, no historical/archaeological resources were encountered in the
project area. The remnants of irrigation features were again noted on the property, as were scattered
refuse of modern origin, mainly along the perimeters. None of these items, however, are of any
historical/archaeological interest.
Item 3B - Page 411
5
Figure 3. Overview of the current condition of the project area. (Photograph taken on February 28, 2022; view to the
northeast)
In summary, the results of research procedures completed during this study have confirmed that no
“historical resources” are known to be present within the project area. Therefore, we reiterate the
recommendations presented to the City of Palm Desert at the conclusion of the 2006 and 2015
studies:
• The proposed development of the subject property would not cause a substantial adverse change
to any known “historical resources.”
• No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the project unless development plans
undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.
• If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with
the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can
evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regarding the findings of
this study or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.
Principal, CRM TECH
Item 3B - Page 412
ATTACHMENT A
2006 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
Item 3B - Page 413
Item 3B - Page 414
Item 3B - Page 415
Item 3B - Page 416
Item 3B - Page 417
Item 3B - Page 418
Item 3B - Page 419
Item 3B - Page 420
Item 3B - Page 421
Item 3B - Page 422
Item 3B - Page 423
Item 3B - Page 424
Item 3B - Page 425
Item 3B - Page 426
Item 3B - Page 427
Item 3B - Page 428
Item 3B - Page 429
Item 3B - Page 430
Item 3B - Page 431
Item 3B - Page 432
Item 3B - Page 433
Item 3B - Page 434
Item 3B - Page 435
Item 3B - Page 436
Item 3B - Page 437
Item 3B - Page 438
Item 3B - Page 439
Item 3B - Page 440
Item 3B - Page 441
Item 3B - Page 442
Item 3B - Page 443
Item 3B - Page 444
ATTACHMENT B
2015 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
Item 3B - Page 445
PHASE I HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY
SANTA ROSA GOLF CLUB AND CATAVINA PROPERTY
City of Palm Desert
Riverside County, California
For Submittal to:
City of Palm Desert Planning Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Prepared for:
The True Life Companies
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
CRM TECH
February 19, 2015
CRM TECH Contract No. 2890
Item 3B - Page 446
Title: Phase I Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Santa Rosa Golf Club
and Catavina Property, City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator/Historian
Ben Kerridge, Archaeologist/Report Writer
Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director
Nina Gallardo, Archaeologist/Native American Liaison
Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
Date: February 19, 2015 (fieldwork completed on January 12, 2015)
For Submittal to: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-0611
Prepared for: The True Life Companies
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 629-2523
USGS Quadrangle: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles; Sections 4 and 5, T5S
R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian
Project Size: Approximately 96.75 acres
Keywords: Coachella Valley area; Phase I historical/archaeological resources survey;
Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 620-170-009, 620-400-030, and 620-400-031; no
“historical resources” encountered
Item 3B - Page 447
i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
In January and February 2015, at the request of The True Life Companies, CRM
TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 96.75 acres of
mixed use land in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. The
subject property of the study consists of two adjacent tracts of land known as the
Santa Rosa Golf Club (Assessor’s Parcel No. 620-170-009) and the Catavina
Property (Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 620-400-030 and 620-400-031), located on the
southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive, in Sections 4 and 5
of T5S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.
The study is a part of the environmental review process for the proposed
redevelopment of the property for residential use, as required by the City of Palm
Desert pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
purpose of this study is to provide the City with the necessary information and
analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial
adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may
exist in or around the project area. In order to identify such resources, CRM
TECH conducted a historical/ archaeological resources records search, pursued
historical background research, contacted Native American representatives, and
carried out a systematic field survey.
Through the various avenues of research, this study did not encounter any
“historical resources” within or adjacent to the project area. Based on these
findings, CRM TECH recommends to the City of Palm Desert a determination of
No Impact regarding cultural resources. No further cultural resources
investigation is recommended for the project unless development plans undergo
such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if buried
cultural materials are discovered during earth-moving operations associated with
the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified
archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
Item 3B - Page 448
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Current Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3
Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 4
Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 4
Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 5
Historic Context ............................................................................................................................ 6
RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 7
Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 7
Historical Research ........................................................................................................................... 7
Native American Participation .......................................................................................................... 7
Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 7
RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 8
Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8
Historical Research ........................................................................................................................... 8
Native American Participation .......................................................................................................... 8
Field Survey .................................................................................................................................... 11
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 11
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 12
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 13
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................ 15
APPENDIX 2: Correspondence with Native American Representatives ........................................... 19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Project area ........................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Current natural setting of the project area: the eastern portion ............................................ 3
Figure 4. Current natural setting of the project area: western portion ................................................. 4
Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity ............................................................... 9
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856 ........................................................................ 10
Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901 ................................................................................. 10
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941 ................................................................................. 10
Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1956-1958 ........................................................................ 10
Item 3B - Page 449
1
INTRODUCTION
In January and February 2015, at the request of The True Life Companies, CRM TECH performed a
cultural resources study on approximately 96.75 acres of mixed use land in the City of Palm Desert,
Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The subject property of the study consists of two adjacent
tracts of land known as the Santa Rosa Golf Club (Assessor’s Parcel No. 620-170-009) and the
Catavina Property (Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 620-400-030 and 620-400-031), located on the southwest
corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive, in Sections 4 and 5 of T5S R6E, San Bernardino
Baseline and Meridian (Figure 2).
The study is a part of the environmental review process for the proposed redevelopment of the
property for residential use, as required by the City of Palm Desert pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of this study is to provide
the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project
would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that
may exist in or around the project area.
In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/ archaeological resources
records search, pursued historical background research, contacted Native American representatives,
and carried out a systematic field survey. The following report is a complete account of the
methods, results, and final conclusion of the study. Personnel who participated in the study are
named in the appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle [USGS 1979])
Item 3B - Page 450
2
Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Cathedral City, La Quinta, and Myoma, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangles [USGS
1978; 1980; 1981])
Item 3B - Page 451
3
SETTING
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The City of Palm Desert is situated in the heart of the Coachella Valley, a northwest-southeast
trending desert valley that constitutes the western end of the Colorado Desert. Dictated by this
geographic setting, the climate and environment of the region are typical of southern California’s
desert country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach
over 120 degrees in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less
than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet.
The project area is located in the northern portion of the City of Palm Desert, bounded on the north
by Frank Sinatra Drive and on the east by Portola Avenue, both of them major local thoroughfares.
The property is surrounded mostly by existing single-family residential tracts, many of them
developed around golf courses, but large expanses of vacant desert land are also present nearby. The
terrain in the project area is relatively level, with elevations ranging around 270-290 feet above mean
sea level.
The Catavina Property, a somewhat triangular shaped tract in the eastern portion of the project area,
is currently undeveloped, but contains scattered remnants of an irrigation system along the western
edge, including concrete pipelines, standpipes, a capped well, and the foundation for a pump. Soils
in this area are composed of light grayish-brown fine dune sand, and the sparse vegetation growth
consisted mostly of creosote bushes, rabbit brush, tumbleweeds, brittle brush, oleander bushes, and
small desert shrubs and grasses (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Current natural setting of the project area: the eastern portion (Catavina Property). (Photo taken on January
26, 2015; view to the north)
Item 3B - Page 452
4
Figure 4. Current natural setting of the project area: western portion (Santa Rosa Golf Club). (Photo taken on January
26, 2015; view to the west)
The Santa Rosa Golf Club encompasses the rectangular-shaped western portion of the project area.
This area has been completely altered from its native state, and is now occupied by fairways, greens,
footpaths, a paved parking lot, and five buildings associated with the golf club (Figure 4).
Vegetation in this area consists entirely of introduced landscaping trees, grasses, and bushes, and the
thick growth covers essentially all ground surface in this portion of the property.
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
The archaeological record of the northern Colorado Desert offers very little information regarding
the earliest periods of prehistory in this area, but the latter phases of the prehistoric period have been
well documented as a result of the many archaeological sites identified dating to the last 1,500 years.
A chronological sequence for the Colorado Desert was formulated by Schaefer (Altschul 1994),
consisting of three distinct cultural complexes classified as the Paleoindian, the Archaic, and the
Late Prehistoric. The Paleoindian cultural complex is characterized as resembling Rogers’ San
Dieguito complex, where groups of this period settled near water sources and exploited resources
from the desert areas to a limited degree (ibid.:27).
The Early and Late Archaic Periods follow, ca. 8000 B.C. to 600 A.D., and are associated with
sparse human occupation of the area (Altschul 1994:28). Very few archaeological remains have
been found associated with the Early Archaic Period, a time when the Colorado Desert region
Item 3B - Page 453
5
appears to have had a very low population density. An increase in population occurred during the
Middle Archaic, which led groups to develop defenses of their territorial boundaries. The variability
of projectile point types has led researchers to conclude that these groups were competing for
resources. This variability also appears to mark social group membership in an environment of
increasing population. The Late Archaic is characterized by a further adaptation to drier and warmer
early Holocene conditions, where there was a decrease in the availability of game animals and an
increased dependence on plant resources and groundstone technology. Group size and mobility was
determined by the seasonal availability of food resources. Artifact types that characterize this period
are large spear and dart points and an array of basketry, nets, traps, split-twig figurines, and other
perishables.
The Late Prehistoric Period is also identified by Schaefer as the Patayan Period (Altschul 1994:29),
which is further subdivided into the Patayan I-III Periods and is associated with the introduction of
pottery in the Colorado Desert region. The entire Patayan cultural complex is characterized by
cremations in ceramic vessels and numerous trail systems. Schaefer states that these trails may
denote travel to special resource collecting zones, trading expeditions, and possibly warfare. Pot-
drops and shrines are evidenced along these trails (ibid.).
Patayan I, dating from ca. 800 to 1050 A.D., saw small mobile groups with ceramic technology
settling seasonally along the Lower Colorado River and employing a similar tool kit to that of the
Hohokam (Altschul 1994:30). The Patayan II, ca. 1050 to 1500 A.D., coincided with the infilling of
Lake Cahuilla and was characterized by the introduction of new ceramic types, indicating local
manufacture. This phase of the Patayan also saw the movement of peoples from the floodplain
towards the eastern and western portions of the desert. The recession of Lake Cahuilla
approximately 500 years ago ushered in the Patayan III Period, ca. 1500 A.D. to historic times, and
the ceramic types known as the Colorado Buff. The contact between indigenous groups and
European explorers, beginning in the 1770s, marked the start of the Protohistoric Period. During this
time period, small mobile bands settled along the Lower Colorado River and depended on small-
scale agriculture, seasonal hunting, fishing, and gathering.
Ethnohistoric Context
The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors
noted large numbers of Native villages and rancherías, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the mid-
19th century. The Cahuilla, a Takic-speaking people whose society was once based on hunting and
gathering, are generally divided by anthropologists into three groups, according to their geographic
setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass-Palm Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the
San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the
eastern Coachella Valley. The basic written sources on Cahuilla culture and history include Kroeber
(1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978). The following ethnohistoric discussion of the Cahuilla is
based primarily on these sources.
The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead,
membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main
divisions of the people, known as moieties. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans
from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called
Item 3B - Page 454
6
their own, for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources.
They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies.
Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from
3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was
decimated, largely as a result of extermination and European diseases, most notably smallpox, for
which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla
heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the reservations in and near the Coachella Valley,
including Cabazon, Augustine, Torres Martinez, Agua Caliente, and Morongo.
Historic Context
In 1823-1825, José Romero, José Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted
European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in
search of a route to Yuma (Johnston 1987:92-95). However, due to its harsh environment, few non-
Natives ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those
who traveled across it along the established trails. The most important among these trails was the
Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Native trading route that was “discovered” in 1862 by William
David Bradshaw and became known after that as the Bradshaw Trail (Gunther 1984:71; Ross
1992:25). In the Coachella Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a course that is very similar to
present-day Highway 111. During the 1860s-1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main
thoroughfare between coastal southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the
Southern Pacific Railroad in 1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday (Johnston 1987:185).
Non-Native settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s with the establishment of railroad
stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and spread further in the 1880s after public land was
opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws
(Laflin 1998:35-36; Robinson 1948:169-171). Farming became the dominant economic activity in
the valley, thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian
wells, but it was not until the completion of the Coachella Canal in 1948-1949 that farmers in the
arid region obtained an adequate and reliable water supply. The main agricultural staple in the
Coachella Valley, the date palm, was first introduced around the turn of the century. By the late
1910s, the date palm industry had firmly established itself, giving the region its celebrated image of
“the Arabia of America” (Shields Date Gardens 1957). Starting in the 1920s, a new industry,
featuring equestrian camps, resort hotels, and eventually country clubs, gradually spread throughout
the Coachella Valley, and since then transformed it into southern California’s leading winter retreat.
The modern community of Palm Desert is located in the general vicinity of Sand Hole, an unreliable
water hole on the Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail that has since vanished into obscurity (Johnston
1987:120). The community was founded in 1945-1946 by three brothers, Randall, Clifford, and Phil
Henderson, who organized the Palm Desert Corporation to promote their new desert town (Gunther
1984:373-374). Following the footsteps of Palm Springs and other "cove communities" along
Highway 111, such as Rancho Mirage and La Quinta, Palm Desert soon joined the ranks of winter
resort towns favored by the rich and famous of the era, characterized by country clubs and golf
courses. The Palm Desert post office was established in 1947, and in 1973, after four unsuccessful
attempts, the community was officially incorporated as the 17th city in Riverside County (ibid.:374).
Item 3B - Page 455
7
RESEARCH METHODS
RECORDS SEARCH
On January 16, 2015, CRM TECH archaeologist Nina Gallardo conducted the historical/
archaeological resources records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC). Located on the
campus of the University of California, Riverside, the EIC is the State of California’s official
cultural resource records repository for the County of Riverside. During the records search, Gallardo
examined maps and records on file for previously identified cultural resources in or near the project
area and existing cultural resources reports pertaining to the vicinity. Previously identified cultural
resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical
Interest, or Riverside County Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic
Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources
Inventory.
HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH principle investigator/
historian Bai “Tom” Tang. In addition to published literature in local and regional history, sources
consulted during the research included the U.S. General Land Office’s (GLO) land survey plat maps
dated 1856-1915, the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) topographic maps dated 1904-1981, and
aerial photographs taken in 1972-1996. The historic maps are collected at the Science Library of the
University of California, Riverside, and the California Desert District of the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, located in Moreno Valley, and the aerial photographs are available at the NETR
Online website.
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
On January 19, 2015, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the California Native American
Heritage Commission for a records search in the commission’s sacred lands file. Following the
commission’s recommendations, CRM TECH further contacted 11 tribal representatives in the
region in writing on February 6 to solicit local Native American input regarding any potential
cultural resources concerns over the proposed project. The correspondences between CRM TECH
and the Native American representatives are attached to this report in Appendix 2.
FIELD SURVEY
On January 26, 2015, CRM TECH archaeologist Daniel Ballester conducted the pedestrian field
survey of the project area. Since the eastern portion was previously surveyed at an intensive level in
2006 (see below) and the western portion is occupied by the existing golf course, the survey was
completed at a reconnaissance level. The eastern portion was surveyed along parallel north-south
transects spaces 25 meters (approximately 75 feet) apart, and the western portion was inspected
wherever exposed ground surface could be found. Ground visibility was excellent (nearly 100
percent) in the eastern portion of the project area due to the sparse vegetation growth, but was poor
(nearly 0 percent) in the western portion since that area was almost entirely covered by turfs, greens,
pavements, and buildings at the golf club.
Item 3B - Page 456
8
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCH
According to EIC records, the eastern portion of the project area, namely the Catavina Property, was
previously surveyed for cultural resources in 2006, but the rest of the property had not been surveyed
prior to this study. Also conducted by CRM TECH, the 2006 study was similar in scope to the
present study and included an intensive-level field survey (Encarnación and Ballester 2006). No
historical/ archaeological sites were recorded within or adjacent to the current project boundaries
during that survey, or as a result of any other past studies in the vicinity.
Outside the project area but within a one-mile radius, EIC records show eight additional cultural
resources studies on various tracts of land and linear features (Figure 5). In all, around 30 percent of
the land within the scope of the records search has been surveyed, which resulted in the
identification of one archaeological site and one isolate (i.e., a locality with fewer than three
artifacts) within the one-mile radius. The site, designated 33-005080 (CA-RIV -5080), consisted of a
prehistoric ceramic scatter located approximately 0.25 mile east of the project area, while the isolate,
33-012698, was recorded as a ceramic sherd and a mano fragment, located 0.75 mile to the east.
Since neither of them was found in the immediate vicinity of the project area, neither of them
requires further consideration during this study.
HISTORICAL RESEARCH
According to historic maps and aerial photographs consulted for this study, no notable man-made
features were observed within or adjacent to the project area throughout the historic period (Figures
6-9). Until the development of the Santa Rosa Golf Club in 1978, no evidence of any settlement or
land development activities was found anywhere within the project area (Figure 2; NETR Online
1972; 1996; Santa Rosa Golf Club n.d.). Based on its depiction in the historic maps and aerial
photographs, the project area appears to be low in sensitivity for cultural resources from the historic
period.
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
In response to CRM TECH’s inquiry, the Native American Heritage Commission reports in a letter
dated February 4, 2015, that the sacred lands record search identified no Native American cultural
resources within the project area but recommends that local Native American groups be contacted
for further information. For that purpose, the commission provided a list of potential contacts in the
region (see Appendix 2).
Upon receiving the Native American Heritage Commission’s response, on February 6, 2015, CRM
TECH sent written requests for comments to all nine individuals on the referral list and the
organizations they represent (see Appendix 2). In addition, as referred by these tribal representatives
or the appropriate tribal government staff, the following individuals were also contacted:
• Denisa Torres, Interim Cultural Heritage Coordinator for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians;
• Gabriella Rubalcava, Environmental Director for the Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians.
Item 3B - Page 457
9
Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies within the scope of the records search. (Locations of recorded historical/
archaeological sites are not shown as a protective measure.)
Item 3B - Page 458
10
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856.
(Source: GLO 1856a; 1856b)
Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source:
USGS 1904)
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source:
USGS 1941a; 1941b)
Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1956-1958.
(Source: USGS 1958a; 1958b)
Item 3B - Page 459
11
As of this time, two of the tribal representatives contacted has responded in writing (see Appendix
2). Mary Ann Green, Chairperson of the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, states in her letter that
the tribe is not aware of any cultural resources in the project area and refers CRM TECH to other
tribes and individuals in closer proximity to the project location. In the meantime, she recommends
Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities in the project area and requests
immediate notification of the discovery of any cultural resources. Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural
Affairs for the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, similarly states that her tribe has no specific
information on any Native American cultural resources at the project location, and defers further
consultation to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.
FIELD SURVEY
The field survey encountered no potential “historical resources” within or immediately adjacent to
the project area. As mentioned above, development of the Santa Rosa Golf Club in the western
portion of the project area began in 1978. All of the existing buildings and other features associated
with the golf club are clearly modern in origin, and none of them appears to predate 1978. On the
Catavina Property in the eastern portion, remnants of an irrigation system were noted along its
western edge, including concrete pipelines, standpipes, a capped well, and the foundation for a
pump, as mentioned above.
The irrigation features on the Catavina Property are of indeterminate age. Since there is no evidence
of any agricultural activities in the project area during this historic period, the origin of these features
may have been associated with the development of the Santa Rosa Golf Club or the adjacent golf
course to the west and the south, which dates to some time between 1958 and 1972 (USGS 1958a;
1958b; NETR Online 1972). In any event, such fragmented remains of the agricultural
infrastructure, virtually ubiquitous in rural and formerly rural areas throughout Southern California,
demonstrate little potential for historic significance and generally require no further study.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area,
and to assist the City of Palm Desert in determining whether or not such resources meet the official
definition of a “historical resource,” as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in
particular CEQA. According to PRC §5020.1(j), “‘historical resource’ includes, but is not limited
to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or
archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic,
agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.”
More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such
resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically
significant by the Lead Agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for
the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that “a resource shall be
considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for
listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A
resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria:
Item 3B - Page 460
12
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
(PRC §5024.1(c))
As stated above, no potential “historical resources” were previously recorded within or adjacent to
the project area, and none was encountered during the present survey. In addition, Native American
input during this study did not identify any sites of traditional cultural value in the vicinity, and
historic maps show no notable cultural features within the project area during the historic period.
Based on these findings, and in light of the criteria listed above, the present report concludes that no
historical resources exist within or adjacent to the project area.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA establishes that “a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC
§21084.1). “Substantial adverse change,” according to PRC §5020.1(q), “means demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be
impaired.”
In summary of the research results outlined above, no “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA,
were encountered throughout the course of this study. Therefore, CRM TECH presents the
following recommendations to the City of Palm Desert:
• No historical resources exist within or adjacent to the project area, and thus the project as
currently proposed will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known historical resources.
• No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the proposed project unless
development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.
• If buried cultural materials are discovered during earth-moving operations associated with the
project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can
evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
Item 3B - Page 461
13
REFERENCES
Altschul, Jeffrey H. (ed.)
1994 Research Design for the Lower Colorado Region. Technical Report No. 93-19, prepared
for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional Office, by Statistical Research
Inc., Tucson, Arizona.
Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:
California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Encarnación, Deirdre, and Daniel Ballester
2006 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: The Catavina Project, Assessor’s
Parcel Nos. 620-400-015 and -016, in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. On
file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1856a Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed
in 1855-1856.
1856b Plat Map: Township No. 5 South Range No. 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed
in 1855-1856.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Laflin, Patricia
1998 Coachella Valley California: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Virginia
Beach, Virginia.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. J. D.
Gunther, Riverside.
Johnston, Francis J.
1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside.
NETR Online
1972-1996 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity. Http://www.historicaerials.com.
Robinson, W. W.
1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Ross, Delmer G.
1992 Gold Road to La Paz: An Interpretive Guide to the Bradshaw Trail. Tales of the Mojave
Road Publishing Company, Essex, California.
Item 3B - Page 462
14
Santa Rosa Golf Club
n.d. Golf Santa Rosa with Us! Http://santarosagolfclub.net/.
Shields Date Gardens
1957 Coachella Valley Desert Trails and the Romance and Sex Life of the Date. Shields Date
Gardens, Indio.
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 26. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning,
California, 1972.
USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30’, 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901.
1941 Map: Edom, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941.
1958a Map: Cathedral City, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1956.
1958b Map: Myoma, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1956, field-check in
1958.
1978 Map: Myoma, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1972 and
photoinspected in 1978.
1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (1:250,000); 1959 edition revised.
1980 Map: La Quinta, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1959 edition photorevised in 1978.
1981 Map: Cathedral City, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1978.
Item 3B - Page 463
15
APPENDIX 1:
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.
Education
1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, UC Riverside.
1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China.
2000 “Introduction to Section 106 Review,” presented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 “Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,” presented by the
Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California.
1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside.
1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, UC Riverside.
1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, UC Riverside.
1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University.
1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University.
1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi’an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi’an, China.
Honors and Awards
1988-1990 University of California Graduate Fellowship, UC Riverside.
1985-1987 Yale University Fellowship, Yale University Graduate School.
1980, 1981 President’s Honor List, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California’s Cultural Resources Inventory
System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California
State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.
Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit,
Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991.
Membership
California Preservation Foundation.
Item 3B - Page 464
16
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST
Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA*
Education
1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors.
1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.
2002 Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level.
UCLA Extension Course #888.
2002 “Recognizing Historic Artifacts,” workshop presented by Richard Norwood,
Historical Archaeologist.
2002 “Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze,” symposium presented by the
Association of Environmental Professionals.
1992 “Southern California Ceramics Workshop,” presented by Jerry Schaefer.
1992 “Historic Artifact Workshop,” presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside.
1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands.
1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside
1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside.
1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C.
Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College.
1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside.
1984-1998 Archaeological Technician, Field Director, and Project Director for various southern
California cultural resources management firms.
Research Interests
Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange
Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural
Diversity.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Author and co-author of, contributor to, and principal investigator for numerous cultural resources
management study reports since 1986.
Memberships
* Register of Professional Archaeologists; Society for American Archaeology; Society for California
Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society.
Item 3B - Page 465
17
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER
Ben Kerridge, M.A.
Education
2014 Archaeological Field School, Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece.
2010 M.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.
2009 Project Management Training, Project Management Institute/CH2M HILL.
2004 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.
Professional Experience
2015- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Colton, California.
2009-2014 Publications Delivery Manager, CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California.
• Led teams of editors, document processors, and graphic designers in production
of technical documents in support of construction, remediation, and
mitigation/monitoring projects of varying sizes around the world.
• Provided field and research support to cultural resources management teams on
various projects.
2010- Volunteer Naturalist, Newport Bay Conservancy, Newport Beach, California.
• Led kayak tours of the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve; provided support for
quarterly symposia; trained and coordinated volunteers.
2009-2010 Senior Commentator, GameReplays.org
• Managed a team of 4-12 commentators and other talent in the creation of ongoing
live and on-demand content for a popular website; liaised with tournament
organizers, commentators from other industry websites, and game publishers.
2006-2009 Technical Publishing Specialist, CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California.
• Edited and coordinated production of reports, proposals, and permit applications
for a wide variety of federal, state, and commercial projects.
2002-2007 Host and Head Writer, The Rational Voice Radio Program, Titan Radio, California
State University, Fullerton.
• Hosted a news/talk format comedy program; wrote and performed sketch comedy
segments for a two-hour weekly radio show.
2002-2006 English Composition/College Preparation Tutor, Various Locations, California.
• Tutored individuals of all ages in English at institutions ranging in size from
community colleges to small tutoring offices.
Papers Presented
• The Uncanny Valley of the Shadow of Modernity: A Re-examination of Anthropological
Approaches to Christianity. Graduate Thesis, California State University, Fullerton, 2010.
• Ethnographic Endeavors into the World of Counterstrike. 74th Annual Conference of the
Southwestern Anthropological Association, 2003.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Co-author and contributor to numerous cultural resources management reports since 2013
Item 3B - Page 466
18
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S.
Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California.
1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California,
Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State University,
San Bernardino.
2002 “Historic Archaeology Workshop,” presented by Richard Norwood, Base
Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside,
California.
Professional Experience
2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California.
1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California.
1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Nina Gallardo, B.A.
Education
2004 B.A., Anthropology/Law and Society, University of California, Riverside.
Professional Experience
2004- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
Honors and Awards
2000-2002 Dean's Honors List, University of California, Riverside.
Item 3B - Page 467
19
APPENDIX 2
CORRESPONDENCE WITH
NATIVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES*
* A total of 11 local Native American representatives were contacted; a sample letter is included in this report.
Item 3B - Page 468
SACRED LANDS FILE & NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS LIST REQUEST
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 373-3710
(916) 373-5471 – Fax
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
Project: Santa Rosa Golf Club & Catavina Property (CRM TECH Contract No. 2890)
County: Riverside
USGS Quadrangle Name: Cathedral City, Myoma, La Quinta, and Rancho Mirage, Calif.
Township 5 South Range 6 East SB BM; Section(s) 4 & 5
Company/Firm/Agency: CRM TECH
Contact Person: Nina Gallardo
Street Address: 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
City: Colton, CA Zip: 92324
Phone: (909) 824-6400 Fax: (909) 824-6405
Email: Ngallardo@crmtech.us
Project Description: This cultural resources study is part of the environmental review process for
the acquisition of the Catavina Property and the Santa Rosa Golf Club in the City o f Palm Desert,
Riverside County.
January 19, 2015
Item 3B - Page 469
Item 3B - Page 470
Item 3B - Page 471
Item 3B - Page 472
February 6, 2015
Denisa Torres, Interim Cultural Heritage Program Coordinator
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA 92220
RE: Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 620-170-009, 620-400-030, and 620-400-031
Approximately 96.75 acres in the City of Palm Desert
Riverside County, California
CRM TECH Contract #2890
Dear Ms. Torres:
The True Life Companies proposes to develop/redevelop approximately 96.75 acres of land in in the City of
Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. The project area encompasses the Santa Rosa Golf Club (APN
620-170-009) and two adjacent parcels known as the Catavina property (APNs 620-400-030 and 620-400-
031), located at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. The project entails
primarily a proposed residential development. The accompanying map, based on the USGS Cathedral City
and Myoma, Calif., 7.5' quadrangles, depict the location of the project area in Sections 4 and 5, T5S R6E,
SBBM. CRM TECH has been hired to conduct a cultural resource study, including the Native American
scoping, for this project.
In a letter dated February 4, 2015, the Native American Heritage Commission reports that the sacred lands
record search identified no Native American cultural resources within the project area, but recommends that
local Native American groups be contacted for further information. Therefore, as part of the cultural
resources study for this project, I am writing to request your input on potential Native American cultural
resources in or near the project area.
According to records on file at the Eastern Information Center, there are no known historical/ archaeological
sites within the boundaries of the project area. Outside the project area but within a one-mile radius, EIC
records identified one prehistoric archaeological site and one prehistoric isolate consisting of a mano fragment
and a ceramic sherd. Site 33-005080 (CA-RIV-5080) is a ceramic scatter located approximately a quarter-
mile east of the project area. A systematic field survey of the project area on January 26, 2015, encountered
no potential historical resources within or adjacent to the project area.
Please respond at your earliest convenience if you have any specific knowledge of sacred/religious sites or
other sites of Native American traditional cultural value within or near the project area that need to be taken
into consideration as part of the cultural resources investigation. Any information or concerns may be
forwarded to CRM TECH by telephone, e-mail, facsimile, or standard mail. Requests for documentation or
information we cannot provide will be forwarded to our client and/or the lead agency, which is the City of
Palm Desert for CEQA-compliance purposes. We would also like to clarify that CRM TECH, as the cultural
resources consultant for the project, is not the appropriate entity to initiate government-to-government
consultations. Thank you for the time and effort in addressing this important matter.
Respectfully,
Nina Gallardo, CRM TECH
Email: ngallardo@crmtech.us
Encl.: project area map
Item 3B - Page 473
Item 3B - Page 474
February
18,
2015
Nina
Gallardo
CRM
TECH
1016
E.
Cooley
Drive,
Suite
A/B
Colton,
CA
92324
Re.:
Assessor’s
Parcel
Nos.
620-‐170-‐009,
620-‐400-‐030,
and
620-‐400-‐031
Project
Approximately
96.75
acres
in
the
City
of
Palm
Desert
Riverside
County,
California
CRM
TECH
Contract
#2890
Dear
Ms.
Gallardo:
Thank
you
for
contacting
the
Cabazon
Band
of
Mission
Indians
concerning
cultural
resource
information
relative
to
the
above
referenced
project.
The
project
is
located
outside
of
the
Tribe’s
current
reservation
boundaries.
The
Tribe
has
no
specific
archival
information
on
the
site
indicating
that
it
may
be
a
sacred/religious
site
or
other
site
of
Native
American
traditional
cultural
value
within
the
project
area.
The
Cabazon
Band
will
defer
to
the
Agua
Caliente
Band
of
Cahuilla
Indians
for
future
consultation.
We
look
forward
to
continued
collaboration
in
the
preservation
of
cultural
resources
or
areas
of
traditional
cultural
importance.
Best
regards,
Judy
Stapp
Director
of
Cultural
Affairs
Item 3B - Page 475
ATTACHMENT C
NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED LANDS FILE
SEARCH RESULT
Item 3B - Page 476
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 1
March 24, 2022
Nina Gallardo
CRM TECH
Via Email to: ngallardo@crmtech.us
Re: Proposed Residential Project, Riverside County
Dear Ms. Gallardo:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF)
was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The
results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not
indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural
resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources
in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential
adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated;
if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By
contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to
consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of
notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to
ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify
me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email
address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
NAHC.ca.gov
Item 3B - Page 477
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
P.O. Box 846
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
hhaines@augustinetribe.com
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
jstapp@cabazonindians-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
Chairman@cahuilla.net
Cahuilla
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
scottmanfred@yahoo.com
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Residential Project,
Riverside County.
PROJ-2022-
001417
03/24/2022 02:02 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
3/24/2022
Item 3B - Page 478
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
jgomez@ramona-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
admin@ramona-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
lsaul@santarosa-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
ivivanco@soboba-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Michael Mirelez, Cultural
Resource Coordinator
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 399 - 0022
Fax: (760) 397-8146
mmirelez@tmdci.org
Cahuilla
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Residential Project,
Riverside County.
PROJ-2022-
001417
03/24/2022 02:02 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
3/24/2022
Item 3B - Page 479
PORTOLA/FRANK SINATRA
RESIDENTIAL
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PREPARED BY:
John Kain, AICP
jkain@urbanxroads.com
(949) 375-2435
Marlie Whiteman, P.E.
mwhiteman@urbanxroads.com
(714) 585-0574
Janette Cachola
jcachola@urbanxroads.com
AUGUST 18, 2022 REVISED
MARCH 21, 2022
14677-03 TA Report.docx
Item 3B - Page 480
Item 3B - Page 481
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. I
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ III
LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................. V
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. VII
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. IX
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Analysis Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Analysis Findings ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Site Access Improvements ............................................................................................................ 5
2 METHODOLOGIES ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Level of Service ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................. 11
2.4 Minimum Level of Service (LOS) ................................................................................................. 12
2.5 Deficiency Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 12
2.6 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology .............................................................................. 12
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 13
3.1 Existing Circulation Network ....................................................................................................... 13
3.2 City of Palm Desert General Plan Circulation Element ............................................................... 13
3.3 Transit Service ............................................................................................................................. 13
3.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................ 13
3.5 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................. 13
3.6 Existing Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................. 18
3.7 Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................. 18
4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC ..................................................................................................... 21
4.1 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 21
4.2 Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 21
4.3 Modal Split .................................................................................................................................. 21
4.4 Trip Assignment .......................................................................................................................... 21
4.5 Cumulative Growth Traffic .......................................................................................................... 26
5 EAP (2024) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 29
5.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 29
5.2 EAP (2024) Traffic Volume Forecasts .......................................................................................... 29
5.3 EAP (2024) Intersection Operations Analysis.............................................................................. 29
5.4 EAP (2024) Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ............................................................................... 29
6 EAPC (2024) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 33
6.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 33
6.2 EAPC (2024) Traffic Volume Forecasts ........................................................................................ 33
6.3 EAPC (2024) Intersection Operations Analysis ........................................................................... 33
6.4 EAPC (2024) Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ............................................................................. 33
Item 3B - Page 482
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
II
6.5 Project Access Intersection Queues ............................................................................................ 33
7 SITE ACCESS AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................... 39
8 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 41
Item 3B - Page 483
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
III
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS – (2022)
APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 3.3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 5.1: EAP (2024) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.1: EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
Item 3B - Page 484
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
IV
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Item 3B - Page 485
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677-03 TA Report.docx
V
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN .................................................................................................. 2
EXHIBIT 1-2: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS STUDY AREA ....................................................................................... 4
EXHIBIT 1-3: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LOS BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO .............................................. 6
EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 8
EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS ....................... 14
EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT ...................................... 15
EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS .............................. 16
EXHIBIT 3-4: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ................................................................................... 17
EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................... 19
EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................................................................................... 23
EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................. 25
EXHIBIT 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP ............................................................... 27
EXHIBIT 5-1: EAP (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................................................................... 30
EXHIBIT 6-1: EAPC (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..................................................................................... 35
EXHIBIT 7-1: CONCEPTUAL STRIPING PLAN ......................................................................................... 40
Item 3B - Page 486
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
VI
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Item 3B - Page 487
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
VII
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ................................................................................. 5
TABLE 2‐1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS ............................................................. 10
TABLE 2‐2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS ........................................................ 10
TABLE 3‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS ............................................ 20
TABLE 4‐1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ............................................................................ 22
TABLE 4‐2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY ......................................................... 28
TABLE 5‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2024) CONDITIONS .................................................... 31
TABLE 6‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS................................................... 36
TABLE 6‐2: EAPC (2024) PROJECT TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS ...................................................... 37
Item 3B - Page 488
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
VIII
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Item 3B - Page 489
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
IX
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CMP Congestion Management Program
DU Dwelling Unit
EAP Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project
EAPC Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
N/A Not Applicable
NP Without Project
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential
TA Traffic Analysis
Item 3B - Page 490
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
X
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Item 3B - Page 491
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677-03 TA Report.docx
1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the traffic analysis (TA) for the proposed Portola/Frank Sinatra
Residential (“Project”), which is located south Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue in
the City of Palm Desert.
The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result
from the development of the proposed Project, and recommend improvements to achieve
acceptable circulation system operational conditions. This TA has been prepared based in
accordance with the County of Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service
& Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020), as the City of Palm Desert utilizes the County
LOS/VMT analysis guidelines. (1) To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Palm Desert’s traffic
study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a traffic study scoping package for review
by City staff prior to the preparation of this report. The Agreement provides an outline of the
Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The Agreement
approved by the City is included in Appendix 1.1.
1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
For Existing (2022) and Opening Year Cumulative (2024) traffic conditions the addition of Project
traffic and cumulative traffic to study area intersections did not result in deficient intersection
operations.
1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project is proposed to consist of 394 residential dwelling units but the number of units on
the site plan is slightly less than was evaluated in the traffic analysis (which includes 402 dwelling
units). The traffic analysis volumes are conservatively high and the analysis fully accounts for the
Project. It is anticipated that the Project would be fully developed by year 2024. A preliminary
site plan of the proposed Project is shown in Exhibit 1-1. Project will have one right-out access
(exit only) along Frank Sinatra Drive, one right-out access (exit only) along Portola Avenue, and
one right-in/right-out/left-in access along Portola Avenue. Regional access to the project site is
provided via the I-10 Freeway at Cook Street, Monterey Avenue, and Country Club Drive.
Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip
generation rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. (2) The Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 2,709 trip-ends
per day with 161 AM peak hour trips and 205 PM peak hour trips.
The assumptions and methods used to estimate the Project’s trip generation characteristics are
discussed in greater detail in Section 4.1 Project Trip Generation of this report.
1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this traffic study, potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been
evaluated for each of the following conditions:
1 Item 3B - Page 492
FRANK SINATRA DRIVEEX. C/LPoolDog Park /RetentionSpaYogaLawnPoolPROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY& R/W (TYP.)EX. CURB & GUTTERPROP. ENTRYKIOSKEX. PROJECT BOUNDARY& LOT LINE (TYP.)EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY& LOT LINE (TYP.)EX. C/L (TYP.)PROP. SIGNAGEPROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY& R/W (TYP.)EX. C/L (TYP.)PORTOLA AVENUEN 27°46'33" E 840.48'N 01°21'56" E 1923.00'N 89°52'08" E 686.08'N 04°19'04" E 58.45'=23°27'29" R=1937.00' L=793.05'=11°29'14" R=1863.00' L=373.51'N 47°57'11" W29.27'ParkPROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)PROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)PROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)EX. PROPERTIES TO BE MERGEDWITH FINAL DESIGN PLANSPROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE &ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.)PROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE &ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.)24' WIDE “ALL-WEATHER SURFACE” MADEUP OF A COMBINATION OF CONCRETE &TURF BLOCK ABLE TO WITHSTAND A FULLYLOADED FIRE VEHICLE TO THE SATISFACTIONAND APPROVAL OF THE FIRE MARSHALL24' WIDE “ALL-WEATHER SURFACE” MADE UP OF A COMBINATIONOF CONCRETE & TURF BLOCK ABLE TO WITHSTAND A FULLY LOADEDFIRE VEHICLE TO THE SATISFACTION AND APPROVAL OF THE FIRE MARSHALLNOPARKI
N
GNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING
NOPARKINGNOPARKINGPROP. BUILDING 1TYPE "C"10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)30,900 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 2TYPE "C"10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)30,900 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 3TYPE "C"10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)30,900 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 4TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 5TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 6TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 7TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 8TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 9TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 10TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 11TYPE "D"9,819 SF (1ST FLOOR)9,819 SF (2ND FLOOR)9,819 SF (3RD FLOOR)29,457 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 12TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 13TYPE "E"44,361 SF (1ST FLOOR)44,361 SF (2ND FLOOR)44,361 SF (3RD FLOOR)133,083 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 14LEASING / CLUBHOUSE17,311 SFPROP.BUILDING 15FITNESS2,553 SF (1ST FLR)2,049 SF (2ND FLR)4,602 SF (TOTAL)32.8'43.7'45.1'42.8'31.4'33.2'34.5'17.8'20.5'30.5'20.5'16.2'18'30'18'21.8'18'32'11.5'22.8'63'20'32.6'46.3'10.9'18'13.9'55.6'309.6'17'20.5'74.1'14.9'20.5'45.1'23.6'30.6'24'10'24'29.1'16'18'30.5'20.5'30'30'18'20.4'18'30'18'20.5'20.5'26.9'23'36'23'20'26'128'20.5'30'20.5'26.4'18'30'18'22.8'24'29'29'117.2'59.4'21.6'21.6'21.6'18'23.1'9'TYP.18'29.4'30'20.5'39.8'68.1'19.5'20.5'30'20.5'21.9'22'18'18'21.4'15.2'18'30'81.2'60.3'20.5'10'10'10'18'20.5'30.5'20.5'117.5'38.9'144.2'=11°29'14" R=1863.00' L=373.51'PORTOLA AVENUEParking To BeDevelopedif NecessaryPROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)EX. PROPERTIES TO BE MERGEDWITH FINAL DESIGN PLANSPROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE &ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.)65PROP. BUILDING 9TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 10TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)20'26'19.5'20.5'30'20.5'21.9'22'18'18'21.4'15.2'18'30'10'MSA CONSULTING, INC.Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape ArchitecturePlanning Environmental Services Dry Utility Coordination GIS34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | MSAConsultinginc.comEASTNORTHSOUTHWESTCENTERLINEEASEMENTEXISTING(E)(N)(S)(W)C/LESMT.EX.ABBREVIATIONSACREAGEACCURB AND GUTTERC&GASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERAPNE/P EDGE OF PAVEMENTA.C. ASPHALT CONCRETEMAX. MAXIMUMBOUNDARYBNDRYM.B. MAP BOOKEXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONEEXISTING SEWEREXISTING RIGHT OF WAYPROPOSED CURBPROPOSED EASEMENTEXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARYEXISTING SEWER FORCE MAINEXISTING WATERPROPOSED LOT LINEPROPOSED RIGHT OF WAYPROPOSED AND EXISTING CENTER LINEPROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARYEXISTING IRRIGATIONEXISTING GASEXISTING EASEMENTEXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING IRRIGATION DRAIN LINEEXISTING CABLEEXISTING CONTOURSEXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONSLEGENDEXISTING LOT LINEEXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTEXISTING TELEPHONEMIN. MINIMUMNUMBERPROPOSEDRIGHT OF WAYTYPICALNO.PROP.R/WTYP.P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTSF SQUARE FEETRADIUSRSTANDARDSTD.P/L PROPERTY LINEN.T.S. NOT TO SCALER-L LOW DENSITY (RESIDENTIAL)UG UNDERGROUNDOVERHEADO/HOPEN SPACE / PARKSOS/PPPAGEPG.PROPOSED PARKING STALLSXCUP SITE PLANDATA TABLEASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:620-400-030 & -031EXHIBIT DATE: AUGUST 17, 2022SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:ADDRESS:INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC.7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A"RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92503DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY:DECEMBER 22, 2021EXHIBIT PREPARER:ADDRESS:MSA CONSULTING, INC.34200 BOB HOPE DRIVERANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270CONTACT:PAUL DEPALATIS, AICPTELEPHONE:(760) 320-9811REVISIONSNO. DATEIN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIALEGAL DESCRIPTION:DESCRIPTIONA PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST,SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN.TELEPHONE:(951) 687-4252APPLICANT /ADDRESS:CONTACT:5021 VERNON AVENUE, SUITE 201EDINA, MINNESOTA 55436CALVIN HAYESHAYES DIETRICH, LLCLAND OWNER:EXISTING GROSS ACREAGELAND USE DESCRIPTION:LANDSCAPE & RETENTION AREAS6.85 AC.299,070 SF38%TOTAL BUILDING AREA (GROUND FLOOR AREA)4.40 AC.191,203 SF24%6.90 AC.300,538 SF38%GARAGES, ACCESS ROADS, HARDSCAPE & PARKING18.31 AC.ACREAGE797,567 SFSF-PERCENTAGE- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "A" (5, 7-9 & 12)- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "B" (4, 6 & 10)53,760 SF32,499 SF1.23 AC.0.75 AC.--DATA TABLE (CONTINUED)EXISTING ZONING:PROPOSED ZONING:EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 22 DU/AC. (P.R.-22)PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 22 DU/AC. (P.R.-22)TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODTOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODBUILDING DESCRIPTION:STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "A" (BUILDING NO(S). 5, 7, 8, 9 & 12)3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "B" (BUILDING NO(S). 4, 6 & 10)3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "C" (BUILDING NO(S). 1-3)3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "D" (BUILDING NO. 11)3 STORYPROPOSED PUBLIC STREET RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION0.16 AC.6,756 SF-(FRANK SINATRA DRIVE)PROPOSED NET ACREAGE18.15 AC.790,811 SF100%PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "A"SURFACE PARKING PROVIDED515 STALLS240 STALLSONSITE PARKING DATA:COUNTPARKING RATIOUNITS / SF120 UNITS---(BUILDING NO(S). 5, 7, 8, 9 & 12)TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED394 UNITS-788 STALLSPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "B"(BUILDING NO(S). 4, 6 & 10)PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "C"(BUILDING NO(S). 1-3)PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "D"(BUILDING NO. 11)72 UNITS -72 UNITS -21 UNITS -144 STALLS144 STALLS42 STALLSDATA TABLE (CONTINUED)RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "E" (BUILDING NO. 13)LEASING / CLUBHOUSE BUILDING: (BUILDING NO. 14)1 STORY3 STORYFITNESS BUILDING: (BUILDING NO. 15)2 STORY- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "C" (1-3) 30,900 SF 0.71 AC. -- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "D" (11) 9,819 SF 0.23 AC. -- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "E" (13)44,361 SF 1.02 AC. -- PROPOSED LEASING / CLUBHOUSE BUILDING (14) 17,311 SF 0.40 AC. -- PROPOSED FITNESS BUILDING (15)2,553 SF 0.06 AC. -UNDERGROUND PARKING PROVIDED157 STALLS--SUB-TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED672 STALLS-1.7 STALLS PER UNITPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "E"(BUILDING NO. 13)109 UNITS -218 STALLSPUBLIC UTILITY PURVEYORS:ZONE "X": AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAINFEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION:LIQUEFACTION:MODERATE LIQUEFACTION ZONENOTES:1.ELECTRIC:GAS:TELEPHONE:WATER:CABLE:SEWER:USA:THIS MAP INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND DIVIDER.2. THERE ARE NO EXISTING DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES KNOWN ONTHIS PROPERTY.SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISONSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANYFRONTIER COMMUNICATIONSCOACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICTSPECTRUMCOACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICTUNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT(800) 684-8123(877) 238-0092(800) 921-8101(760) 398-2651(877) 719-3278(760) 398-2651(800) 227-2600SCHOOL DISTRICT:DESERT SANDS UNIFIEDAS SHOWN ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS,COMMUNITY PANEL MAP NUMBER: 06065C1595GEFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST 28, 2008DATA TABLE (CONTINUED)PROOF OF PARKING PROVIDED--65 STALLSTOTAL WITH PROOF OF PARKING PROVIDED -1.9 STALLS PER UNIT 737 STALLSPROOF OF PARKING EXHIBITSEE BELOW FOR PROOF OF PARKING EXHIBITR:\2746\Acad\Planning\Site Plan\2746 Technical Site Plan.dwg, 8/17/2022 3:43:09 PM, dgallerani, MSA Consulting, Inc.2 Item 3B - Page 493
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
3
Existing (2022) Conditions
Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2024) Conditions
Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project Plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2024) Conditions
All study area intersections are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition
analysis methodology.
1.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing physical conditions have been disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as
they existed at the time this report was prepared.
1.3.2 EAP CONDITIONS
The EAP (2024) traffic conditions analyses determine potential traffic impacts based on a
comparison of the EAP traffic conditions to Existing conditions. To account for background traffic
growth, an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 4.04% (2 percent per year over 2
years, compounded annually) for 2024 conditions is included for EAP traffic conditions.
Consistent with County of Riverside traffic study guidelines, the EAP analysis is intended to
identify “Opening Year” deficiencies associated with the development of the proposed Project
based on the expected background growth within the study area.
1.3.3 EAPC CONDITIONS
The EAPC (2024) traffic conditions analyses determine the potential near‐term cumulative
circulation system deficiencies. Background traffic for these analysis scenarios follow the same
ambient growth methodology described above for EAP traffic conditions. However, EAPC traffic
conditions also include the addition of cumulative development traffic. The comprehensive list
of cumulative development projects was compiled from information provided by the City of Palm
Desert.
1.4 STUDY AREA
The Project study area was defined in coordination with the City of Palm Desert. Consistent with
County of Riverside traffic study guidelines, the study area includes any intersection of
“Collector” or higher classification street, with “Collector” or higher classification streets, at
which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips. Exhibit 1‐2 presents the study
area and intersection analysis locations.
The “50 peak hour trip” criteria generally represents a minimum number of trips at which a
typical intersection would have the potential to be substantively impacted by a given
development proposal. Although each intersection may have unique operating characteristics,
this traffic engineering rule of thumb is a widely utilized tool for estimating a potential area of
impact (i.e., study area).
3 Item 3B - Page 494
4 Item 3B - Page 495
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
5
To ensure that this TA satisfies the needs of the City of Palm Desert, Urban Crossroads, Inc.
prepared a Project specific traffic study scoping agreement for review by City staff prior to the
preparation of this TA. The agreement provides an outline of the study area, trip generation, trip
distribution, and analysis methodology. The agreement approved by the City of Palm Desert is
included in Appendix 1.1.
1.4.1 INTERSECTIONS
The following 11 study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1‐2 and listed in Table 1‐1 were
selected for this TA based on consultation with City of Palm Desert staff.
TABLE 1‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location ID Intersection Location
1 Monterey Avenue / Frank Sinatra Drive 7 Portola Avenue / Retreat Circle (S)
2 Portola Avenue / Central Access 8 Portola Avenue / Willow Ridge
3 Shepherd Lane ‐ North Access / Frank Sinatra Drive 9 Portola Avenue / Country Club Drive
4 Portola Avenue / Frank Sinatra Drive 10 Portola Avenue / South Access
5 Cook Street / Frank Sinatra Drive 11 Cook Street / University Park Drive
6 Portola Avenue / Retreat Circle (N)
1.5 ANALYSIS FINDINGS
This section provides a summary of the analysis results for Existing (2022), EAP (2024), and EAPC
(2024) conditions. The LOS results are summarized in Exhibit 1‐3.
Existing (2022) Conditions
For Existing (2022) traffic conditions, the study area intersections are currently operating at
acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “D” or better) during AM and PM peak hours.
Opening Year (2024) Conditions
For EAP (2024) and EAPC (2024) traffic conditions, the study area intersections continue to
operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “D” or better) during AM and PM peak hours.
1.6 SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
The Project is proposed to have one right‐out access (exit only) along Frank Sinatra Drive, one
right‐out access (exit only) along Portola Avenue, and one right‐in/right‐out/left‐in access along
Portola Avenue, as indicated on Exhibit 1‐4. Roadway improvements necessary to provide site
access are assumed to be constructed in conjunction with site development.
5 Item 3B - Page 496
#Intersection Existing (2022)EAP(2024)EAPC (2024)1Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.
2Portola Av. / Central Access
3 Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr.
4Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.
5 Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr.
6Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N)
7Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S)
8Portola Av. / Willow Ridge
9Portola Av. / Country Club Dr.
10 Portola Av. / South Access
11 Cook St. / University Park Dr.
6 Item 3B - Page 497
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677-03 TA Report.docx
7
Shared sidewalks should be constructed along the Project frontage, consistent with General Plan
Roadway Cross-sections. At each Project access, a crosswalk should be provided perpendicular
to the driveway (along the major street). The sidewalk and crosswalk features provided in
conjunction with development of this site will connect residents to the Portola Avenue/Frank
Sinatra Drive intersection where safe street crossings are accommodating with the existing traffic
signal and crosswalks. The transit services which are closest to the site are currently provided
along Cook Street, and residents may choose to utilize the existing sidewalk along Frank Sinatra
Drive east of Portola Avenue to access these services.
These improvements should be in place prior to occupancy:
Portola Avenue & Central Access (#2) – Install a stop control on the eastbound approach, provide
crosswalk for north/south pedestrians on the Project side of Portola Avenue, and construct the
intersection with the following geometrics:
• Provide a median opening along Portola Avenue at this location to accommodate a 200 ft.
northbound left turn lane for the Project access.
• Provide one southbound right turn lane (200 ft.).
• Provide one eastbound right lane.
The recommended 200 ft. northbound left turn pocket and 200 ft. southbound right turn pocket
adequately accommodates peak hour volumes for the Project.
North Access & Frank Sinatra Drive (#3) – Construct the Project access as a right-out only access
with crosswalk for east/west pedestrians on the Project side of Frank Sinatra Drive. Cross-street
stop control on the northbound approach provides acceptable peak hour service levels.
Exhibit 1-4 shows the intersection configuration of #3 Shepherd Ln – N. Access & Frank Sinatra
Drive. The existing Shepherd Lane is accessed at Frank Sinatra Drive via southbound right turn
lane, eastbound left turn lane, or westbound defacto right turn lane. The proposed Project North
Access is located slightly offset from Shepherd Lane, but the Project traffic does not interact with
Shepherd Lane. Project traffic has the option to turn right out to Frank Sinatra, but no left turns
or inbound traffic is allowed.
Portola Avenue & South Access (#10) – Construct the Project access as a right-out only access
with crosswalk for north/south pedestrians on the Project side of Portola Avenue. Cross-street
stop control on the eastbound approach provides acceptable peak hour service levels.
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed
construction plans for the Project site.
Sight distance at the project access points should be reviewed with respect to standard American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) sight distance standards at
the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.
7 Item 3B - Page 498
FRANK SINATRA DRIVEEX. C/LPoolDog Park /RetentionSpaYogaLawnPoolPROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY& R/W (TYP.)EX. CURB & GUTTERPROP. ENTRYKIOSKEX. PROJECT BOUNDARY& LOT LINE (TYP.)EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY& LOT LINE (TYP.)EX. C/L (TYP.)PROP. SIGNAGEPROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY& R/W (TYP.)EX. C/L (TYP.)PORTOLA AVENUEN 27°46'33" E 840.48'N 01°21'56" E 1923.00'N 89°52'08" E 686.08'N 04°19'04" E 58.45'=23°27'29" R=1937.00' L=793.05'=11°29'14" R=1863.00' L=373.51'N 47°57'11" W29.27'ParkPROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)PROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)PROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)EX. PROPERTIES TO BE MERGEDWITH FINAL DESIGN PLANSPROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE &ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.)PROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE &ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.)24' WIDE “ALL-WEATHER SURFACE” MADEUP OF A COMBINATION OF CONCRETE &TURF BLOCK ABLE TO WITHSTAND A FULLYLOADED FIRE VEHICLE TO THE SATISFACTIONAND APPROVAL OF THE FIRE MARSHALL24' WIDE “ALL-WEATHER SURFACE” MADE UP OF A COMBINATIONOF CONCRETE & TURF BLOCK ABLE TO WITHSTAND A FULLY LOADEDFIRE VEHICLE TO THE SATISFACTION AND APPROVAL OF THE FIRE MARSHALLNOPARKI
N
GNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING
NOPARKING
NOPARKINGPROP. BUILDING 1TYPE "C"10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)30,900 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 2TYPE "C"10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)30,900 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 3TYPE "C"10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)30,900 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 4TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 5TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 6TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 7TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 8TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 9TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 10TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 11TYPE "D"9,819 SF (1ST FLOOR)9,819 SF (2ND FLOOR)9,819 SF (3RD FLOOR)29,457 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 12TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 13TYPE "E"44,361 SF (1ST FLOOR)44,361 SF (2ND FLOOR)44,361 SF (3RD FLOOR)133,083 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 14LEASING / CLUBHOUSE17,311 SFPROP.BUILDING 15FITNESS2,553 SF (1ST FLR)2,049 SF (2ND FLR)4,602 SF (TOTAL)32.8'43.7'45.1'42.8'31.4'33.2'34.5'17.8'20.5'30.5'20.5'16.2'18'30'18'21.8'18'32'11.5'22.8'63'20'32.6'46.3'10.9'18'13.9'55.6'309.6'17'20.5'74.1'14.9'20.5'45.1'23.6'30.6'24'10'24'29.1'16'18'30.5'20.5'30'30'18'20.4'18'30'18'20.5'20.5'26.9'23'36'23'20'26'128'20.5'30'20.5'26.4'18'30'18'22.8'24'29'29'117.2'59.4'21.6'21.6'21.6'18'23.1'9'TYP.18'29.4'30'20.5'39.8'68.1'19.5'20.5'30'20.5'21.9'22'18'18'21.4'15.2'18'30'81.2'60.3'20.5'10'10'10'18'20.5'30.5'20.5'117.5'38.9'144.2'=11°29'14" R=1863.00' L=373.51'PORTOLA AVENUEParking To BeDevelopedif NecessaryPROP. LANDSCAPEPARKWAY (TYP.)EX. PROPERTIES TO BE MERGEDWITH FINAL DESIGN PLANSPROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE &ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.)65PROP. BUILDING 9TYPE "A"10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,256 SF (TOTAL)PROP. BUILDING 10TYPE "B"10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR)10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)32,499 SF (TOTAL)20'26'19.5'20.5'30'20.5'21.9'22'18'18'21.4'15.2'18'30'10'MSA CONSULTING, INC.Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape ArchitecturePlanning Environmental Services Dry Utility Coordination GIS34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | MSAConsultinginc.comEASTNORTHSOUTHWESTCENTERLINEEASEMENTEXISTING(E)(N)(S)(W)C/LESMT.EX.ACREAGEACCURB AND GUTTERC&GASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERAPNE/PEDGE OF PAVEMENTA.C. ASPHALT CONCRETEMAX. MAXIMUMBOUNDARYBNDRYM.B. MAP BOOKEXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONEEXISTING SEWEREXISTING RIGHT OF WAYPROPOSED CURBPROPOSED EASEMENTEXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARYEXISTING SEWER FORCE MAINEXISTING WATERPROPOSED LOT LINEPROPOSED RIGHT OF WAYPROPOSED AND EXISTING CENTER LINEPROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARYEXISTING IRRIGATIONEXISTING GASEXISTING EASEMENTEXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING IRRIGATION DRAIN LINEEXISTING CABLEEXISTING CONTOURSEXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONSEXISTING LOT LINEEXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTEXISTING TELEPHONEMIN. MINIMUMNUMBERPROPOSEDRIGHT OF WAYTYPICALNO.PROP.R/WTYP.P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTSF SQUARE FEETRADIUSRSTANDARDSTD.P/L PROPERTY LINEN.T.S. NOT TO SCALER-L LOW DENSITY (RESIDENTIAL)UG UNDERGROUNDOVERHEADO/HOPEN SPACE / PARKSOS/PPPAGEPG.PROPOSED PARKING STALLSXCUP SITE PLANDATA TABLEASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:620-400-030 & -031EXHIBIT DATE: AUGUST 17, 2022SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:ADDRESS:INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC.7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A"RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92503DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY:DECEMBER 22, 2021EXHIBIT PREPARER:ADDRESS:MSA CONSULTING, INC.34200 BOB HOPE DRIVERANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270CONTACT:PAUL DEPALATIS, AICPTELEPHONE:(760) 320-9811REVISIONSNO. DATELEGAL DESCRIPTION:DESCRIPTIONA PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST,SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN.TELEPHONE:(951) 687-4252APPLICANT /ADDRESS:CONTACT:5021 VERNON AVENUE, SUITE 201EDINA, MINNESOTA 55436CALVIN HAYESHAYES DIETRICH, LLCLAND OWNER:EXISTING GROSS ACREAGELAND USE DESCRIPTION:LANDSCAPE & RETENTION AREAS6.85 AC.299,070 SF38%TOTAL BUILDING AREA (GROUND FLOOR AREA)4.40 AC.191,203 SF24%6.90 AC.300,538 SF38%GARAGES, ACCESS ROADS, HARDSCAPE & PARKING18.31 AC.ACREAGE797,567 SFSF-PERCENTAGE- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "A" (5, 7-9 & 12)- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "B" (4, 6 & 10)53,760 SF32,499 SF1.23 AC.0.75 AC.--EXISTING ZONING:PROPOSED ZONING:EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 22 DU/AC. (P.R.-22)PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 22 DU/AC. (P.R.-22)TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODTOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOODBUILDING DESCRIPTION:STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "A" (BUILDING NO(S). 5, 7, 8, 9 & 12)3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "B" (BUILDING NO(S). 4, 6 & 10)3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "C" (BUILDING NO(S). 1-3)3 STORYRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "D" (BUILDING NO. 11)3 STORYPROPOSED PUBLIC STREET RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION0.16 AC.6,756 SF-(FRANK SINATRA DRIVE)PROPOSED NET ACREAGE18.15 AC.790,811 SF100%PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "A"SURFACE PARKING PROVIDED515 STALLS240 STALLSONSITE PARKING DATA:COUNTPARKING RATIOUNITS / SF120 UNITS---(BUILDING NO(S). 5, 7, 8, 9 & 12)TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED394 UNITS-788 STALLSPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "B"(BUILDING NO(S). 4, 6 & 10)PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "C"(BUILDING NO(S). 1-3)PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "D"(BUILDING NO. 11)72 UNITS -72 UNITS -21 UNITS -144 STALLS144 STALLS42 STALLSRESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "E" (BUILDING NO. 13)LEASING / CLUBHOUSE BUILDING: (BUILDING NO. 14)1 STORY3 STORYFITNESS BUILDING: (BUILDING NO. 15)2 STORY- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "C" (1-3) 30,900 SF 0.71 AC. -- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "D" (11) 9,819 SF 0.23 AC. -- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "E" (13)44,361 SF 1.02 AC. -- PROPOSED LEASING / CLUBHOUSE BUILDING (14) 17,311 SF 0.40 AC. -- PROPOSED FITNESS BUILDING (15)2,553 SF 0.06 AC. -UNDERGROUND PARKING PROVIDED157 STALLS--SUB-TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED672 STALLS-1.7 STALLS PER UNITPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "E"(BUILDING NO. 13)109 UNITS -218 STALLSPUBLIC UTILITY PURVEYORS:ZONE "X": AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAINFEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION:LIQUEFACTION:MODERATE LIQUEFACTION ZONENOTES:1.ELECTRIC:GAS:TELEPHONE:WATER:CABLE:SEWER:USA:THIS MAP INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND DIVIDER.2. THERE ARE NO EXISTING DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES KNOWN ONTHIS PROPERTY.SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISONSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANYFRONTIER COMMUNICATIONSCOACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICTSPECTRUMCOACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICTUNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT(800) 684-8123(877) 238-0092(800) 921-8101(760) 398-2651(877) 719-3278(760) 398-2651(800) 227-2600SCHOOL DISTRICT:DESERT SANDS UNIFIEDAS SHOWN ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS,COMMUNITY PANEL MAP NUMBER: 06065C1595GEFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST 28, 2008PROOF OF PARKING PROVIDED--65 STALLSTOTAL WITH PROOF OF PARKING PROVIDED -1.9 STALLS PER UNIT 737 STALLSPROOF OF PARKING EXHIBITSEE BELOW FOR PROOF OF PARKING EXHIBITR:\2746\Acad\Planning\Site Plan\2746 Technical Site Plan.dwg, 8/17/2022 3:43:09 PM, dgallerani, MSA Consulting, Inc.8 Item 3B - Page 499
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
9
2 METHODOLOGIES
This section documents the methodologies and assumptions used to perform this traffic
assessment.
2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS
is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors such as speed, travel time,
delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A,
representing completely free‐flow conditions, to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting
in stop‐and‐go conditions. LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where
vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow.
2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic
signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control.
The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway.
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms
of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (3) The HCM uses different procedures
depending on the type of intersection control.
2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Palm Desert require signalized intersection operations analysis based on the
methodology described in the HCM 6th Edition (3). Intersection LOS operations are based on an
intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue
move‐up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is
directly related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as
described in Table 2‐1. Study area intersections have been evaluated using the Synchro (Version
11) analysis software package.
Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection
capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of
aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to
determine measures of effectiveness in addressing such parameters as delay and queue length.
The level of service and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration
optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network.
9 Item 3B - Page 500
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
10
TABLE 2‐1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS
Description
Average Control
Delay (Seconds),
V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C > 1.0
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable
progression and/or short cycle length. 0 to 10.00 A F
Operations with low delay occurring with good
progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.01 to 20.00 B F
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle
failures begin to appear.
20.01 to 35.00 C F
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are
noticeable.
35.01 to 55.00 D F
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is
considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.01 to 80.00 E F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very
long cycle lengths
80.01 and up F F
Source: HCM 6th Edition (3)
2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Palm Desert require the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using
the methodology described in the HCM 6th Edition. (3) The LOS rating is based on the weighted
average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2‐2).
TABLE 2‐2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS
Description Average Control Delay Per
Vehicle (Seconds)
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C > 1.0
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A F
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B F
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C F
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D F
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E F
Extreme traffic delays with
intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.00 F F
Source: HCM 6th Edition
At two‐way or side‐street stop‐controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled
movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection
as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of
all movements in that lane. For all‐way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the
intersection as a whole.
10 Item 3B - Page 501
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
11
2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other
public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic
signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TA uses the signal warrant criteria
presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (CA MUTCD), for all study area intersections. (4)
The signal warrant criteria for Existing conditions are based upon several factors, including
volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas.
The CAMUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or
more of the signal warrants are met. (4) Specifically, this TA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume‐based
Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing study area
intersections for all analysis scenarios. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TA because it
provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics (e.g. located in
communities with populations of less than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major streets
operating above 40 miles per hour). For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis
for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection.
Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need
for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans
planning level ADT‐based signal warrant analysis worksheets.
Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the unsignalized study area intersection of
Portola Avenue / Willow Ridge (#8). The remaining unsignalized existing and future intersections
are not evaluated since Portola Avenue / Central Access (#2), Shepherd Lane – North Access /
Frank Sinatra Drive (#3), Portola Avenue / Retreat Circle N. (#6), Portola Avenue / Retreat Circle
S. (#7), and Portola Avenue / South Access (#10) are not full access intersections.
The Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis is presented in the subsequent section,
Section 3 Existing Conditions of this report. The traffic signal warrant analysis for future
conditions is presented Section 5 EAP (2024) Traffic Analysis and Section 6 EAPC (2024) of this
report.
It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the
installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this condition does not require that
a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors
and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should
also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may
satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below
acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.
11 Item 3B - Page 502
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
12
2.4 MINIMUM LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
Per Goal 2, Policy 1, Program 1.A of the City of Palm Desert General Plan, the following LOS will
be utilized for study area intersections located within the City: The City shall make good‐faith
efforts to achieve LOS C along roadway segments and for peak hour intersection operations. LOS
D shall be acceptable in instances when physical constraints, land use compatibility or other
urban design considerations make achieving LOS C impractical.
2.5 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
This section outlines the methodology used in this analysis related to identifying circulation
system deficiencies.
To determine whether the addition of project traffic at a study intersection would result in a
deficiency, the following will be utilized:
A deficiency occurs at study area intersections if the pre‐Project condition is at or better than LOS
D (i.e., acceptable LOS), and the addition of project trips causes the peak hour LOS of the study
area intersection to operate at unacceptable LOS (i.e., LOS E or F). Per the County of Riverside
traffic study guidelines, for intersections currently operating at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F), a
deficiency would occur if the Project contributes 50 or more peak hour trips to pre‐project traffic
conditions.
2.6 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
In cases where this TA identifies that the Project would contribute additional traffic volumes to
cumulative traffic deficiencies, Project fair share costs of improvements necessary to address
deficiencies have been identified. The Project’s fair share cost of improvements is determined
based on the following equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to total future traffic:
Project Fair Share % = Project Traffic / (EAPC Total Traffic – Existing Traffic)
12 Item 3B - Page 503
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
13
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Palm Desert
General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations,
freeway mainline operations, and traffic signal warrant analyses.
3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the agreement with City of Palm Desert staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes
a total of 11 existing and future intersections as shown on Exhibit 1‐2. Exhibit 3‐1 illustrates the
study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through
traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.
3.2 CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Exhibit 3‐2 shows the adopted City of Palm Desert General Plan Circulation Element, and Exhibit
3‐3 illustrates the adopted City of Palm Desert General Plan roadway cross‐sections.
3.3 TRANSIT SERVICE
The study area is currently served by the Sunline with bus services along Cook Street via route 5
and route 10. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Sunline periodically to address
ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic
adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate.
3.4 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
The existing pedestrian facilities within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3‐4.
As shown on Exhibit 3‐4, existing on‐street bike lanes are generally located throughout the study
area, with exception of the following roadways: Monterey Avenue ‐ south of Frank Sinatra Drive,
Cook Street north of Frank Sinatra Drive, University Park Drive, and Shepherd Lane.
Sidewalks also exist throughout the study area roadways, with the exception of some portions of
Monterey Avenue, Frank Sinatra Drive (including adjacent to the Project site), Portola Avenue
(including adjacent to the Project site), and east leg of University Park Drive.
3.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour
conditions using traffic count data collected in March 2022. The following peak hours were
selected for analysis:
Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM)
Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM)
The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix
3.1.
13 Item 3B - Page 504
14 Item 3B - Page 505
15 Item 3B - Page 506
16 Item 3B - Page 507
17 Item 3B - Page 508
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
18
The weekday AM and PM peak hour count data are representative of typical peak hour traffic
conditions in the study area. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate
atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity that would prevent or
limit roadway access and detour routes. These raw turning volumes have been flow conserved
between intersections with limited access, no access and where there are currently no uses
generating traffic.
Existing weekday average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the study
area are shown on Exhibit 3‐5. Existing ADT volumes are based upon factored intersection peak
hour counts collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection
leg where daily counts are unavailable:
Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 12.658 = Leg Volume
For those roadway segments which have 24‐hour tube count data available in close proximity to
the study area, a comparison between the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes indicated that
the peak‐to‐daily relationship of approximately 7.90 percent would sufficiently estimate ADT
volumes for planning‐level analyses. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 12.658
estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak‐to‐daily
relationship of approximately 7.90 percent (i.e., 1/0.0790 = 12.658). Existing weekday AM and
PM peak hour intersection volumes are also shown on Exhibit 3‐5.
3.6 EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based
on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this
report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 3‐1 which indicates
that the study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS (LOS “D” or better)
during the peak hours. The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix
3.2 of this TA.
3.7 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on 2022 peak hour intersection
turning volumes (see Appendix 3.3). For Existing (2022) traffic conditions, the unsignalized
intersection of Portola Avenue / Willow Ridge is not anticipated warrant a traffic signal.
18 Item 3B - Page 509
19 Item 3B - Page 510
LTRLTRLTRLTRAMPMAMPM
1Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.TS 23023122122120.022.2C C
2 Portola Av. / Central Access ‐‐
3Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 00000112002d12.0 10.4 B B
4Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.TS 13d13012112124.523.1C C
5Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr.TS 22023122122112.325.4B C
6Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N)CSS 03112000000111.511.8B B
7Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S)CSS 03002000000111.411.7B B
8 Portola Av. / Willow Ridge CSS 0 2 1 1*2000010d16.316.7C C
9Portola Av. / Country Club Dr.TS 12112d12112140.738.2D D
10 Portola Av. / South Access ‐‐
11Cook St. / University Park Dr.TS 131>>2311111115.85.7 A A
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software.
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]3‐1
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Turn lane accomodated within two‐way left‐turn lane (TWLTL)
Level of
Service2
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)Northbound Southbound Eastbound
TABLE 3‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS
Intersection Does Not Exist
Intersection Does Not Exist
Westbound
20 Item 3B - Page 511
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677-03 TA Report.docx
21
4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the
Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. The Project is proposed to
consist of 394 dwelling units but the traffic analysis includes 402 dwelling units (slightly more
than shown on the site plan). The traffic analysis volumes are conservatively high and the analysis
fully accounts for the Project. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Project will
be constructed within a single phase of development with a projected Opening Year of 2024.
Project will have one right-out access (exit only) along Frank Sinatra Drive, one right-out access
(exit only) along Portola Avenue, and one right-in/right-out/left-in access along Portola Avenue.
Regional access to the project site is provided via the I-10 Freeway at Cook Street, Monterey
Avenue, and Country Club Drive.
4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a
development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon
forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the
specific land uses being proposed for a given development.
Trip generation rates used to estimate Project traffic and a summary of the Project’s trip
generation are shown in Table 4-1. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for Multifamily Housing-Low Rise (ITE Land Use
Code 220) land use in their published Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. (2) As shown
on Table 4-1, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 2,709 trip-ends per
day with 161 AM peak hour trips and 205 PM peak hour trips.
4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The trip distribution pattern for the proposed Project is depicted on Exhibit 4-1. The trip
distribution has been developed based on past work experience in the vicinity of the Project site
and refined to reflect the roadway network and the surrounding uses in the vicinity of the
proposed Project as they exist today.
4.3 MODAL SPLIT
Although the use of public transit, walking, and/or bicycling have the potential to reduce Project-
related traffic, such reductions have not been taken into considerations in this traffic study in
order to provide a conservative analysis of the Project’s potential to contribute to circulation
system deficiencies.
4.4 TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon
the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system
improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on
the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project weekday ADT, AM
peak hour, and PM peak hour peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on
Exhibit 4-2.
21 Item 3B - Page 512
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 220 402 DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 220 402 DU 40 121 161 129 76 205 2,709
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]Trip Gen
TABLE 4‐1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
2 DU = Dwelling Unit
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021).
Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
22 Item 3B - Page 513
23 Item 3B - Page 514
24 Item 3B - Page 515
25 Item 3B - Page 516
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
26
4.5 CUMULATIVE GROWTH TRAFFIC
4.5.1 AMBIENT GROWTH RATE
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 4.04 percent
(2 percent per year over 2 years) for EAP and EAPC traffic conditions. The ambient growth factor
is intended to approximate regional traffic growth. This ambient growth rate is added to existing
traffic volumes to account for area‐wide growth not reflected by cumulative development
projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding
roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been
approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are
under consideration by governing agencies, for EAPC traffic conditions.
4.5.2 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation
with planning and engineering staff from the City of Palm Desert.
Exhibit 4‐3 illustrates the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative
development projects and their proposed land uses are shown on Table 4‐2. If applicable, the
traffic generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the Opening Year
Cumulative forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development
projects in Table 4‐2 are reflected as part of the background traffic.
4.5.3 NEAR‐TERM TRAFFIC FORECASTS
The “buildup” approach combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth
factor to forecast EAP (2024) and EAPC (2024) traffic conditions. An ambient growth factor of
2% per year accounts for background (area‐wide) traffic increases that occur over time up to the
year 2024 from the year 2022 (compounded 2% per year growth over a 2‐year period). Project
traffic is added to assess both forecast EAP (2024) and EAPC (2024) traffic conditions. Traffic
volumes generated by cumulative development projects are not included in the EAP (2024) traffic
conditions. The near‐term traffic analysis includes the following traffic conditions, with the
various traffic components:
EAP (2024)
o Existing 2022 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04%)
o Project Traffic
EAPC (2024)
o Existing 2022 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04%)
o Cumulative Development traffic
o Project Traffic
26 Item 3B - Page 517
27 Item 3B - Page 518
ID Project Name
Land Use1 Quantity Units2
PD8 Fairfield Inn & Suites Marriott Hotel Hotel 108 RM
SFDR 166 DU
Multi‐Family 612 DU
Commercial 551.0 TSF
Hotel 250 RM
PD11 Scotelle Office Building Office 10.732 TSF
SFDR 773 DU
Multi‐Family 336 DU
Congregate Care 161 DU
Assisted Living 150 Beds
SFDR 288 DU
Multi‐Family 182 DU
PD14 Dolce SFDR 159 DU
PD15 Spanish Walk Multi‐Family 150 DU
PD17 Falling Waters SFDR 159 DU
PD18 The Sands Apartments Apartments 142 DU
SFDR 111 DU
Multi‐Family 114 DU
Multi‐Family 384 DU
Commercial 120.0 TSF
PD27 Wolff Cottages Senior Adult Living 167.0 DU
SFDR 211 DU
Rental Homes 165 DU
Paired Housing 128 DU
Apartments 270 DU
PD29 Monterey Crossings Commercial 120.0 TSF
PD30 Santa Barbara Apartment Multi‐Family 48 DU
Resort Hotel 350 RM
Surf Lagoon 1350 Guests
Shopping Center 4.0 TSF
High‐Turnover (Sit‐Down) Restaurant 11.250 TSF
PD34 The Retreat at Desert Willow Condominiums 112 DU
PD36 Laboratory/Office Space Building Laboratory/Office Space 20.5 TSF
RM5 PDP 13003/FDP 13004 SFDR 32 DU
RM17 TTM 36623/PDP 14003 SFDR 17 DU
RM28 TTM 32308 (Los Ranchos)SFDR 7 DU
RM39 TPM 34233 SFDR 4 DU
RM40 TPM 34741 SFDR 4 DU
RM44 TPM 36683 SFDR 1 DU
RM45 TPM 36849 SFDR 3 DU
RM47 Monterey Medical Center Medical Office 75.164 TSF
RM48 Pulte Homes / Del Webb Assisted Living 84 Beds
Hotel 400 RM
Retail 175.0 TSF
Multi‐Family (Mid Rise)832 DU
Single Family 1100 DU
1 SFDR = Single Family Detached Residential
2 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Rooms
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]CM List
TABLE 4‐2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PD10 Millennium Palm Desert
PD12 University Park
PD21 Ponderosa II
PD25 Monterey Specific Plan
PD13 Villa Portofino
RM49 Section 31 Specific Plan
PD28 Vitalia/Refuge Palm Desert Residential
PD31 Desert Surf
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
28 Item 3B - Page 519
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
29
5 EAP (2024) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project
(EAP) (2024) traffic conditions and the resulting peak hour intersection operations and traffic
signal warrant analyses.
5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAP conditions are
consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3‐1, with the exception of the following:
Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site
access are also assumed to be in place for EAP conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway
improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).
5.2 EAP (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth from Existing conditions of 4.04%
(2 percent per year over 2 years, compounded annually) is included for EAP traffic conditions.
Cumulative development projects are not included as part of the EAP analysis. EAP weekday
ADT, weekday PM, and weekend peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown
on Exhibit 5‐1.
5.3 EAP (2024) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAP peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on
the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection
analysis results are summarized in Table 5‐1, which indicate that the study intersections are
anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS “D” or better) with the addition of
Project traffic. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAP traffic conditions is
included in Appendix 5.1 of this TA.
5.4 EAP (2024) TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for EAP (2024) traffic conditions are based on estimated peak hour
intersection turning volumes (see Appendix 3.3). For EAP (2024) traffic conditions, the
unsignalized intersection of Portola Avenue / Willow Ridge is not anticipated warrant a traffic
signal.
29 Item 3B - Page 520
30 Item 3B - Page 521
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.TS 23023122122120.9 24.0 C C
2 Portola Av. / Central Access CSS 1 30021 001 0 0 0 10.7 10.0 B B
3 Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 0 0 1 00112002d12.5 11.5 B B
4 Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.TS 13d13012112128.8 25.8 C C
5 Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr.TS 22023122122116.4 30.0 B C
6 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N)CSS 03112000000111.7 12.0 B B
7 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S)CSS 03002000000111.6 12.2 B B
8 Portola Av. / Willow Ridge CSS 0 2 1 1*2000010d17.3 18.4 C C
9 Portola Av. / Country Club Dr.TS 12112d12112141.3 39.2 D D
10 Portola Av. / South Access CSS 030020001 0 0 0 10.6 10.0 B B
11 Cook St. / University Park Dr.TS 131>>2311111115.95.8 A A
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software.
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]5‐1
TABLE 5‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2024) CONDITIONS
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Turn lane accomodated within two‐way left‐turn lane (TWLTL)
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Level of
Service2
1 = Improvement
31 Item 3B - Page 522
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
32
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
32 Item 3B - Page 523
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677-03 TA Report.docx
33
6 EAPC (2024) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project
plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2024) traffic conditions and the resulting peak hour intersection
operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.
6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions are
consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site
access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway
improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).
• Driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide
site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions only (e.g., intersection and
roadway improvements along the cumulative development’s frontages and driveways).
6.2 EAPC (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
To account for background traffic, other known cumulative development projects in the study
area were included in addition to 4.04% of ambient growth for EAPC traffic conditions in
conjunction with traffic associated with the proposed Project. EAPC weekday ADT, weekday PM,
and weekend peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 6-1.
6.3 EAPC (2024) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAPC peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on
the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection
analysis results are summarized in Table 6-1, which indicate that the study area intersections are
anticipated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS (LOS “D” or better) under EAPC conditions.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC traffic conditions is included in
Appendix 6.1 of this TA.
6.4 EAPC (2024) TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions are based on estimated peak hour
intersection turning volumes (see Appendix 3.3). For EAPC (2024) traffic conditions, the
unsignalized intersection of Portola Avenue / Willow Ridge is not anticipated warrant a traffic
signal.
6.5 PROJECT ACCESS INTERSECTION QUEUES
A queuing analysis was performed for EAPC (2024) conditions to assess the adequacy of turn bay
lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the Central Access Project entry. Queuing analysis
findings are presented in Table 6-2 for EAPC (2024). Queueing analysis worksheets are provided
in Appendix 6.1.
33 Item 3B - Page 524
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677-03 TA Report.docx
34
As shown in Table 6-2, the proposed Project turn bay lengths provide adequate storage to
accommodate the anticipated 95th percentile queues.
For Portola at Central Access, the northbound left turn pocket is 200’, whereas the maximum
queue length is 38’, so adequate storage is provided. For Portola at Retreat Circle North, the
southbound left turn pocket is 100’, whereas the maximum queue length is 37’, so adequate
storage is provided.
For eastbound left turns from Frank Sinatra Drive to Portola Avenue, the turn lane length is 120’
and the maximum peak hour queue length is 121’. The maximum peak hour queue length is
approximately equal to the storage provided.
34 Item 3B - Page 525
35 Item 3B - Page 526
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.TS 23023122122124.1 40.4 C D
2 Portola Av. / Central Access CSS 1 30021 001 0 0 0 11.5 10.8 B B
3 Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 0 0 1 00112002d13.6 12.7 B B
4 Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.TS 13d13012112130.8 29.4 C C
5 Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr.TS 22023122122119.5 41.0 B D
6 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N)CSS 03112000000112.7 14.6 B B
7 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S)CSS 03002000000112.2 13.6 B B
8 Portola Av. / Willow Ridge CSS 0 2 1 1*2000010d20.1 24.6 C C
9 Portola Av. / Country Club Dr.TS 12112d12112145.4 44.4 D D
10 Portola Av. / South Access CSS 030020001 0 0 0 11.4 10.8 B B
11 Cook St. / University Park Dr.TS 131>>23111111116.4 11.0 B B
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐1
TABLE 6‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Turn lane accomodated within two‐way left‐turn lane (TWLTL)
1 = Improvement
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Level of
Service2
36 Item 3B - Page 527
AM PM
Peak Hour Volume AM PM
2
NBL 16 52 PM 52 200 30 38
SBR 24 77 PM 77 200 NOM
3 NOM 3
EBR 36 23 AM 36 >50 34 31
3
NBR 73 46 AM 73 >75 53 70
4
EBL 79 100 PM 100 120 102 121
EBR 132 126 AM 132 230 49 62
6
SBL 5 25 PM 25 100 23 37
10
EBR 12 8 AM 12 >75 33 27
3 NOM = Nominal, average length less than 10 feet.
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐2
1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic.
2 Proposed length of storage.
Portola Av. / Central Access
Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Av. / South Access
Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N)
TABLE 6‐2: EAPC (2024) PROJECT TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS
ID Intersection
Turning
Movement
Lane
EAPC (2024)
Storage
Length2
(feet)
95th Percentile
Queue Length
Per Lane (feet)1
37 Item 3B - Page 528
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
38
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
38 Item 3B - Page 529
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677-03 TA Report.docx
39
7 SITE ACCESS AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
The Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Project is proposed to have one right-out access (exit only)
along Frank Sinatra Drive, one right-out access (exit only) along Portola Avenue, and one right-
in/right-out/left-in access along Portola Avenue, as indicated on previously presented Exhibit 1-
4. Exhibit 1-4 shows Project access and site-adjacent improvements to be constructed in
conjunction with development. Roadway improvements necessary to provide site access and on-
site circulation are assumed to be constructed in conjunction with site development.
Shared sidewalks should be constructed along the Project frontage, consistent with General Plan
Roadway Cross-sections. At each Project access, a crosswalk should be provided perpendicular
to the driveway (along the major street). The sidewalk and crosswalk features provided in
conjunction with development of this site will connect residents to the Portola Avenue/Frank
Sinatra Drive intersection where safe street crossings are accommodating with the existing traffic
signal and crosswalks. The transit services which are closest to the site are currently provided
along Cook Street, and residents may choose to utilize the existing sidewalk along Frank Sinatra
Drive east of Portola Avenue to access these services.
These improvements should be in place prior to occupancy:
Portola Avenue & Central Access (#2) – Install a stop control on the eastbound approach, provide
crosswalk for north/south pedestrians on the Project side of Portola Avenue, and construct the
intersection with the following geometrics:
• Provide a median opening along Portola Avenue at this location to accommodate a 200 ft.
northbound left turn lane for the Project access.
• Provide one southbound right turn lane (200 ft.).
• Provide one eastbound right lane.
The recommended 200 ft. northbound left turn pocket and 200 ft. southbound right turn pocket
adequately accommodates peak hour volumes for the Project. Exhibit 7-1 shows the proposed
Project turn lanes and other conceptual striping features.
North Access & Frank Sinatra Drive (#3) – Construct the Project access as a right-out only access
with crosswalk for east/west pedestrians on the Project side of Frank Sinatra Drive. Cross-street
stop control on the northbound approach provides acceptable peak hour service levels.
Portola Avenue & South Access (#10) – Construct the Project access as a right-out only access
with crosswalk for north/south pedestrians on the Project side of Portola Avenue. Cross-street
stop control on the eastbound approach provides acceptable peak hour service levels.
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed
construction plans for the Project site.
Sight distance at the project access points should be reviewed with respect to standard AASHTO
sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street
improvement plans.
39 Item 3B - Page 530
NOPAR
K
I
N
GNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING
NOPARKING
NOPARKING
R 73-3R 3-2R 73-3R 3-7R 3-20RR 4-4PROPOSEDBIKE LANEMARKINGPROPOSEDBIKE LANEMARKINGPROPOSED BIKELANE SIGNEXISTING MEDIANISLAND TO BEDEMOLISHEDEXISTING BIKE LANE STRIPETO BE RESTIPEDPROPOSEDCROSSWALKPROPOSEDNEW STRIPINGPROPOSEDCROSSWALKPROPOSEDCROSSWALKR 3-235'200'150'PROPOSEDNEW STRIPING200'200'W 74 (CA)W 74 (CA)200'MSA CONSULTING, INC.Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape ArchitecturePlanning Environmental Services Dry Utility Coordination GIS34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | MSAConsultinginc.comDATA TABLEASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:620-400-030 & -031EXHIBIT DATE: August 11, 2022SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:ADDRESS:INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC.7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A"RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92503DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY:DECEMBER 22, 2021EXHIBIT PREPARER:ADDRESS:MSA CONSULTING, INC.34200 BOB HOPE DRIVERANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270CONTACT:PAUL DEPALATIS, AICPTELEPHONE:(760) 320-9811REVISIONSNO. DATEIN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIALEGAL DESCRIPTION:DESCRIPTIONA PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST,SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN.TELEPHONE:(951) 687-4252APPLICANT /ADDRESS:CONTACT:5021 VERNON AVENUE, SUITE 201EDINA, MINNESOTA 55436CALVIN HAYESHAYES DIETRICH, LLCLAND OWNER:R 73-3R 3-7R 3-20RR 3-2R 4-4PRELIMINARY SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANW-74 (CA)8/12/2022 11:49:06 AM, Previous paper size (30.00 x 42.00 inches), 1:140 Item 3B - Page 531
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
41
8 REFERENCES
1. Riverside County Transportation Department. Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service
& Vehicle Miles Traveled. County of Riverside : s.n., December 2020.
2. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition, 2021.
3. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition. s.l. : National Academy
of Sciences, 2016.
4. California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (CAMUTCD). 2014.
41 Item 3B - Page 532
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
42
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
42 Item 3B - Page 533
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 1.1:
APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
Item 3B - Page 534
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Item 3B - Page 535
14677‐02 TA & VMT Scope.docx
March 10, 2022
Mr. Randy Bowman
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
SUBJECT: PORTOLA/FRANK SINATRA RESIDENTIAL, LOS ANALYSIS AND VMT SCREENING
SCOPING AGREEMENT
Dear Mr. Randy Bowman:
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to resubmit this scoping letter to City of Palm Desert regarding the
Level of Service (LOS) Analysis and VMT Screening for the proposed Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential
development (“Project”), which is located south Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue in the
City of Palm Desert. It is our understanding that the Project will potentially include up to 402
residential dwelling units.
The remainder of this letter describes the proposed analysis methodology, Project trip generation, trip
distribution, and Project traffic assignment/project trips on the surrounding roadway network. The
following scoping assumptions have been prepared in accordance with the County of Riverside’s
Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020) as
the City of Palm Desert utilizes the County guidelines.
A preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2 depicts the location of
the proposed project in relation to the existing roadway network. It is anticipated that the Project
would be fully developed by year 2024. Project will have one right‐out access (exit only) along Frank
Sinatra Drive, one right‐out access (exit only) along Portola Avenue, and one right‐in/right‐out/left‐in
access along Portola Avenue.
TRIP GENERATION
In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip‐generation statistics published in
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition, 2021) manual for the proposed
land use (220 ‐ Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit) are used. Table 1 presents the trip
generation rates and the resulting trip generation summary for the proposed Project. As shown in
Table 1, the Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 2,709 trip‐ends per day with 161 AM peak
hour trips and 205 PM peak hour trips.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of
surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. Exhibits 3 and 4 presents the Project
1.1-1 Item 3B - Page 536
Mr. Randy Bowman
City of Palm Desert
March 10, 2022
Page 2
14677‐02 TA & VMT Scope.docx
distribution patterns. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns,
Project ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 5.
ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
Consistent with the County’s LOS guidelines, intersection analysis will be provided for the following
analysis scenarios:
Existing (2022) Conditions
Existing plus Ambient plus Project (EAP) (2024)
Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2024)
The City of Palm Desert General Plan Circulation Element is depicted on Exhibit 6, while the
accompanying roadway cross‐sections are presented on Exhibit 7.
STUDY AREA
The traffic impact study area was defined in conformance with the requirements of County of
Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled. Consistent
with the County’s LOS guidelines, study area intersections have been identified for the Project based
on the contribution of 50 or more peak hour trips. Based on this criterion, anticipated trip generation
and trip distribution, the following intersections will be evaluated:
ID Intersection Location ID Intersection Location
1 Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. 7 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S)
2 Portola Av. / Central Access 8 Portola Av. / Willow Ridge
3 Shepherd Ln. ‐ North Access / Frank Sinatra Dr. 9 Portola Av. / Country Club Dr.
4 Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. 10 Portola Av. / South Access
5 Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr. 11 Cook St. / University Park Dr.
6 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N)
Exhibit 2 identifies the proposed study area intersection analysis locations.
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA
Per the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan, LOS D as the threshold for acceptable traffic conditions on
the circulation network.
1.1-2 Item 3B - Page 537
Mr. Randy Bowman
City of Palm Desert
March 10, 2022
Page 3
14677‐02 TA & VMT Scope.docx
PREFERRED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
For the purposes of this analysis, signalized intersection operations analysis will be based on the
methodology described in the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition). Intersection LOS operations are
based on an intersection’s average control delay. Unsignalized intersections will be evaluated using
the methodology described in the HCM 6th Edition. At two‐way or side‐street stop‐controlled
intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the
major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the
delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane.
Traffic/transportation safety issue that could have an impact on either signalized or unsignalized
intersections within the study area will be identified. These issues could be related to sight distance,
queuing, pedestrians, bicyclists, or public transit.
TRAFFIC COUNTS
Traffic count data will be collected in March during the AM peak period of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and PM
peak period of 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
It is requested that City staff review the list of cumulative development projects (shown on Exhibit 8
and listed on Table 2) for inclusion in the traffic study. Consistent with other studies performed in the
area, an ambient growth rate of 2% per year will be utilized as a minimum if necessary. The rate will
be compounded over a 2‐year period (i.e., 1.022years = 1.0404 or 4.04%) for Interim Year (2024)
conditions.
SPECIAL ISSUES
Per discussion with City staff, queuing analysis will be evaluated for the northbound left turn at the
intersection of Portola Avenue / Central Access (#2). In addition, the need for southbound right turn
lane at the intersection of Portola Avenue / Central Access (#2) will be reviewed if necessary for
capacity and safety.
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
The VMT screening assessment will be prepared under separate cover. The California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) procedures for determination of transportation impacts have recently changed to
an evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) rather than vehicle delay or level of service, due to
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). County of Riverside VMT screening guidelines will be applied to the project.
1.1-3 Item 3B - Page 538
Mr. Randy Bowman
City of Palm Desert
March 10, 2022
Page 4
14677‐02 TA & VMT Scope.docx
Please review this scoping agreement let us know if it is acceptable, or if the City requests any changes
to this proposed scope of work. If you have any questions, please contact John Kain at (949) 375‐2435
or Marlie Whiteman (714) 585‐0574.
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
John Kain, AICP Marlie Whiteman, PE
Principal Senior Associate
1.1-4 Item 3B - Page 539
Market Rate Walk UpBuildings12 Buildings x 24DU288 Dus 309,000 gsfMarket Rate Single Building3 Story -Residential / 3 Story 85% Efficiency, ~2,000gsf Amenity108 Dus -135,600 gsfTotal396 DUsParking503 Surface Stalls145 Underground Structured Stalls649 Total Stalls1.64 Stalls/DU134 Garage Spaces221 Carport Spaces PORTOLA AVENUE FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
Dog Park/Water Retention~48,650sfClubHouseLeasing15,000gsfCourtsPoolFitness 2,500gsfGATETRTRTRTRTRGATEGATEPoolPuttingGreen212221113333 Story MultiFamilyCarport Typ.Garage Typ.1GATEGUARDHOUSE96' - 6" TO KIOSK24' - 0"24' - 0"EXIT ONLYEXIT ONLYENTRYEXIT123' - 0"20' - 0" SETBACK20' - 0" SETBACK15' - 0"152' - 1"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"150' - 0"150' - 0"R/W TO BE DEDICATEDOVERHEAD POWER POLE TYP.25' - 0"25' - 0"63' - 0"DNMARKET RATE SINGLE BUILDING LEVEL P154,150 gsf145 SpacesScale:1" = 100'-0"Frank Sinatra & PortolaCONCEPT SITE PLAN03/01/22Palm Desert, CASITE PLANLOWER LEVEL PARKINGN1.1-5 Item 3B - Page 540
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit 220 402 DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit 220 402 DU 40 121 161 129 76 205 2,709
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Scope.xlsx]Trip Gen
TABLE 1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
2 DU = Dwelling Unit
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021).
Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
1.1-6 Item 3B - Page 541
1.1-7 Item 3B - Page 542
1.1-8 Item 3B - Page 543
1.1-9 Item 3B - Page 544
1.1-10 Item 3B - Page 545
1.1-11 Item 3B - Page 546
1.1-12 Item 3B - Page 547
1.1-13 Item 3B - Page 548
ID Project Name Land Use1 Quantity Units2
PD8 Fairfield Inn & Suites Marriott Hotel Hotel 108 RM
SFDR 166 DU
Multi‐Family 612 DU
Commercial 551.0 TSF
Hotel 250 RM
PD11 Scotelle Office Building Commercial 10.732 TSF
SFDR 773 DU
Multi‐Family 336 DU
Congregate Care 161 DU
Assisted Living 150 DU
SFDR 288 DU
Multi‐Family 182 DU
PD14 Dolce SFDR 159 DU
PD15 Spanish Walk Multi‐Family 150 DU
PD17 Falling Waters SFDR 159 DU
PD18 The Sands Apartments Apartments 142 DU
SFDR 111 DU
Multi‐Family 114 DU
Multi‐Family 384 DU
Commercial 120.0 TSF
PD27 Wolff Cottages Senior Adult Living 167.0 DU
SFDR 211 DU
Rental Homes 165 DU
Paired Housing 128 DU
Apartments 270 DU
PD29 Monterey Crossings Commercial 120.0 TSF
PD30 Santa Barbara Apartment Multi‐Family 48 DU
Resort Hotel 350 RM
Surf Lagoon 1350 Guests
Shopping Center 4.0 TSF
High‐Turnover (Sit‐Down) Restaurant 11.250 TSF
PD34 The Retreat at Desert Willow Condominiums 112 DU
PD36 Laboratory/Office Space Building Laboratory/Office Space 20.5 TSF
RM5 PDP 13003/FDP 13004 SFDR 32 DU
RM17 TTM 36623/PDP 14003 SFDR 17 DU
RM28 TTM 32308 (Los Ranchos)SFDR 7 DU
RM39 TPM 34233 SFDR 4 DU
RM40 TPM 34741 SFDR 4 DU
RM44 TPM 36683 SFDR 1 DU
RM45 TPM 36849 SFDR 3 DU
RM47 Monterey Medical Center Medical Office 75.164 TSF
RM48 Pulte Homes / Del Webb Assisted Living 84 Beds
Hotel 400 RM
Retail 175.0 TSF
Multi‐Family (Mid Rise)832 DU
Single Family 1100 DU
1 SFDR = Single Family Detached Residential
2 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Rooms
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Scope.xlsx]CM List
RM49 Section 31 Specific Plan
PD28 Vitalia/Refuge Palm Desert Residential
PD31 Desert Surf
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
PD21 Ponderosa II
PD25 Monterey Specific Plan
PD13 Villa Portofino
TABLE 2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PD10 Millennium Palm Desert
PD12 University Park
1.1-14 Item 3B - Page 549
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 3.1:
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS – (2022)
Item 3B - Page 550
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Item 3B - Page 551
File Name : 01_PLD_Mont_Frank AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Monterey Avenue
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Monterey Avenue
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Monterey Avenue
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 3 177 18 198 17 90 10 117 15 99 3 117 7 37 21 65 497
07:15 AM 15 213 15 243 36 159 12 207 18 116 10 144 4 55 18 77 671
07:30 AM 8 283 18 309 56 163 11 230 13 111 6 130 10 83 36 129 798
07:45 AM 12 366 23 401 55 146 17 218 20 162 14 196 7 52 34 93 908
Total 38 1039 74 1151 164 558 50 772 66 488 33 587 28 227 109 364 2874
08:00 AM 14 269 26 309 37 144 17 198 18 141 5 164 10 70 24 104 775
08:15 AM 17 263 25 305 34 122 18 174 22 166 9 197 14 67 12 93 769
08:30 AM 8 271 21 300 38 141 16 195 19 147 14 180 14 78 27 119 794
08:45 AM 16 319 21 356 41 111 18 170 19 157 16 192 18 70 29 117 835
Total 55 1122 93 1270 150 518 69 737 78 611 44 733 56 285 92 433 3173
Grand Total 93 2161 167 2421 314 1076 119 1509 144 1099 77 1320 84 512 201 797 6047
Apprch %3.8 89.3 6.9 20.8 71.3 7.9 10.9 83.3 5.8 10.5 64.2 25.2
Total %1.5 35.7 2.8 40 5.2 17.8 2 25 2.4 18.2 1.3 21.8 1.4 8.5 3.3 13.2
Monterey Avenue
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Monterey Avenue
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 8 283 18 309 56 163 11 230 13 111 6 130 10 83 36 129 798
07:45 AM 12 366 23 401 55 146 17 218 20 162 14 196 7 52 34 93 908
08:00 AM 14 269 26 309 37 144 17 198 18 141 5 164 10 70 24 104 775
08:15 AM 17 263 25 305 34 122 18 174 22 166 9 197 14 67 12 93 769
Total Volume 51 1181 92 1324 182 575 63 820 73 580 34 687 41 272 106 419 3250
% App. Total 3.9 89.2 6.9 22.2 70.1 7.7 10.6 84.4 4.9 9.8 64.9 25.3
PHF .750 .807 .885 .825 .813 .882 .875 .891 .830 .873 .607 .872 .732 .819 .736 .812 .895
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-1 Item 3B - Page 552
File Name : 01_PLD_Mont_Frank AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Monterey Avenue
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Monterey Avenue Frank Sinatra Drive Frank Sinatra Drive Monterey Avenue
Right
92
Thru
1181
Left
51
InOut Total
684 1324 2008 Right63 Thru575 Left182 OutTotalIn357 820 1177 Left
73
Thru
580
Right
34
Out TotalIn
1469 687 2156 Left41 Thru272 Right106 TotalOutIn740 419 1159 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:15 AM 07:45 AM 08:00 AM
+0 mins.8 283 18 309 36 159 12 207 20 162 14 196 10 70 24 104
+15 mins.12 366 23 401 56 163 11 230 18 141 5 164 14 67 12 93
+30 mins.14 269 26 309 55 146 17 218 22 166 9 197 14 78 27 119
+45 mins.17 263 25 305 37 144 17 198 19 147 14 180 18 70 29 117
Total Volume 51 1181 92 1324 184 612 57 853 79 616 42 737 56 285 92 433
% App. Total 3.9 89.2 6.9 21.6 71.7 6.7 10.7 83.6 5.7 12.9 65.8 21.2
PHF .750 .807 .885 .825 .821 .939 .838 .927 .898 .928 .750 .935 .778 .913 .793 .910
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-2 Item 3B - Page 553
File Name : 01_PLD_Mont_Frank PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Monterey Avenue
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Monterey Avenue
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Monterey Avenue
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 23 248 14 285 36 79 15 130 29 313 29 371 31 120 28 179 965
04:15 PM 26 263 23 312 27 90 18 135 37 315 38 390 30 139 36 205 1042
04:30 PM 19 270 14 303 32 89 19 140 30 295 26 351 32 124 29 185 979
04:45 PM 20 233 12 265 29 85 15 129 21 307 35 363 26 150 30 206 963
Total 88 1014 63 1165 124 343 67 534 117 1230 128 1475 119 533 123 775 3949
05:00 PM 24 224 12 260 52 85 16 153 29 302 27 358 33 153 29 215 986
05:15 PM 26 236 11 273 41 94 14 149 41 355 23 419 26 135 28 189 1030
05:30 PM 21 230 8 259 38 89 18 145 18 285 28 331 22 96 21 139 874
05:45 PM 20 246 10 276 21 78 19 118 16 258 25 299 16 92 26 134 827
Total 91 936 41 1068 152 346 67 565 104 1200 103 1407 97 476 104 677 3717
Grand Total 179 1950 104 2233 276 689 134 1099 221 2430 231 2882 216 1009 227 1452 7666
Apprch %8 87.3 4.7 25.1 62.7 12.2 7.7 84.3 8 14.9 69.5 15.6
Total %2.3 25.4 1.4 29.1 3.6 9 1.7 14.3 2.9 31.7 3 37.6 2.8 13.2 3 18.9
Monterey Avenue
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Monterey Avenue
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM
04:15 PM 26 263 23 312 27 90 18 135 37 315 38 390 30 139 36 205 1042
04:30 PM 19 270 14 303 32 89 19 140 30 295 26 351 32 124 29 185 979
04:45 PM 20 233 12 265 29 85 15 129 21 307 35 363 26 150 30 206 963
05:00 PM 24 224 12 260 52 85 16 153 29 302 27 358 33 153 29 215 986
Total Volume 89 990 61 1140 140 349 68 557 117 1219 126 1462 121 566 124 811 3970
% App. Total 7.8 86.8 5.4 25.1 62.7 12.2 8 83.4 8.6 14.9 69.8 15.3
PHF .856 .917 .663 .913 .673 .969 .895 .910 .791 .967 .829 .937 .917 .925 .861 .943 .952
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-3 Item 3B - Page 554
File Name : 01_PLD_Mont_Frank PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Monterey Avenue
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Monterey Avenue Frank Sinatra Drive Frank Sinatra Drive Monterey Avenue
Right
61
Thru
990
Left
89
InOut Total
1408 1140 2548 Right68 Thru349 Left140 OutTotalIn781 557 1338 Left
117
Thru
1219
Right
126
Out TotalIn
1254 1462 2716 Left121 Thru566 Right124 TotalOutIn527 811 1338 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:00 PM 04:45 PM 04:30 PM 04:15 PM
+0 mins.23 248 14 285 29 85 15 129 30 295 26 351 30 139 36 205
+15 mins.26 263 23 312 52 85 16 153 21 307 35 363 32 124 29 185
+30 mins.19 270 14 303 41 94 14 149 29 302 27 358 26 150 30 206
+45 mins.20 233 12 265 38 89 18 145 41 355 23 419 33 153 29 215
Total Volume 88 1014 63 1165 160 353 63 576 121 1259 111 1491 121 566 124 811
% App. Total 7.6 87 5.4 27.8 61.3 10.9 8.1 84.4 7.4 14.9 69.8 15.3
PHF .846 .939 .685 .933 .769 .939 .875 .941 .738 .887 .793 .890 .917 .925 .861 .943
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-4 Item 3B - Page 555
File Name : 03_PLD_Shep_Frank AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Shepherd Lane/North Access
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Shepherd Lane
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
North Access
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 0 0 10 10 0 112 6 118 0 0 0 0 3 57 0 60 188
07:15 AM 0 0 19 19 0 162 2 164 0 0 0 0 4 79 0 83 266
07:30 AM 0 0 22 22 0 193 0 193 0 0 0 0 6 112 0 118 333
07:45 AM 0 0 18 18 0 188 6 194 0 0 0 0 6 97 0 103 315
Total 0 0 69 69 0 655 14 669 0 0 0 0 19 345 0 364 1102
08:00 AM 0 0 11 11 0 172 7 179 0 0 0 0 5 101 0 106 296
08:15 AM 0 0 19 19 0 152 5 157 0 0 0 0 5 90 0 95 271
08:30 AM 0 0 9 9 0 155 7 162 0 0 0 0 12 113 0 125 296
08:45 AM 0 0 17 17 0 137 9 146 0 0 0 0 5 106 0 111 274
Total 0 0 56 56 0 616 28 644 0 0 0 0 27 410 0 437 1137
Grand Total 0 0 125 125 0 1271 42 1313 0 0 0 0 46 755 0 801 2239
Apprch %0 0 100 0 96.8 3.2 0 0 0 5.7 94.3 0
Total %0 0 5.6 5.6 0 56.8 1.9 58.6 0 0 0 0 2.1 33.7 0 35.8
Shepherd Lane
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
North Access
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 0 0 22 22 0 193 0 193 0 0 0 0 6 112 0 118 333
07:45 AM 0 0 18 18 0 188 6 194 0 0 0 0 6 97 0 103 315
08:00 AM 0 0 11 11 0 172 7 179 0 0 0 0 5 101 0 106 296
08:15 AM 0 0 19 19 0 152 5 157 0 0 0 0 5 90 0 95 271
Total Volume 0 0 70 70 0 705 18 723 0 0 0 0 22 400 0 422 1215
% App. Total 0 0 100 0 97.5 2.5 0 0 0 5.2 94.8 0
PHF .000 .000 .795 .795 .000 .913 .643 .932 .000 .000 .000 .000 .917 .893 .000 .894 .912
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-5 Item 3B - Page 556
File Name : 03_PLD_Shep_Frank AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Shepherd Lane/North Access
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Shepherd Lane Frank Sinatra Drive Frank Sinatra Drive North Access
Right
70
Thru
0
Left
0
InOut Total
40 70 110 Right18 Thru705 Left0 OutTotalIn400 723 1123 Left
0
Thru
0
Right
0
Out TotalIn
0 0 0 Left22 Thru400 Right0 TotalOutIn775 422 1197 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:15 AM 07:15 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM
+0 mins.0 0 19 19 0 162 2 164 0 0 0 0 5 101 0 106
+15 mins.0 0 22 22 0 193 0 193 0 0 0 0 5 90 0 95
+30 mins.0 0 18 18 0 188 6 194 0 0 0 0 12 113 0 125
+45 mins.0 0 11 11 0 172 7 179 0 0 0 0 5 106 0 111
Total Volume 0 0 70 70 0 715 15 730 0 0 0 0 27 410 0 437
% App. Total 0 0 100 0 97.9 2.1 0 0 0 6.2 93.8 0
PHF .000 .000 .795 .795 .000 .926 .536 .941 .000 .000 .000 .000 .563 .907 .000 .874
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-6 Item 3B - Page 557
File Name : 03_PLD_Shep_Frank PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Shepherd Lane/North Access
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Shepherd Lane
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
North Access
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 0 0 10 10 0 111 10 121 0 0 0 0 11 144 0 155 286
04:15 PM 0 0 14 14 0 125 5 130 0 0 0 0 9 170 0 179 323
04:30 PM 0 0 10 10 0 118 10 128 0 0 0 0 12 149 0 161 299
04:45 PM 0 0 9 9 0 114 7 121 0 0 0 0 6 163 0 169 299
Total 0 0 43 43 0 468 32 500 0 0 0 0 38 626 0 664 1207
05:00 PM 0 0 10 10 0 124 10 134 0 0 0 0 15 185 0 200 344
05:15 PM 0 0 16 16 0 128 14 142 0 0 0 0 7 165 0 172 330
05:30 PM 0 0 13 13 0 116 5 121 0 0 0 0 10 125 0 135 269
05:45 PM 0 0 9 9 0 103 6 109 0 0 0 0 8 116 0 124 242
Total 0 0 48 48 0 471 35 506 0 0 0 0 40 591 0 631 1185
Grand Total 0 0 91 91 0 939 67 1006 0 0 0 0 78 1217 0 1295 2392
Apprch %0 0 100 0 93.3 6.7 0 0 0 6 94 0
Total %0 0 3.8 3.8 0 39.3 2.8 42.1 0 0 0 0 3.3 50.9 0 54.1
Shepherd Lane
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
North Access
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 0 10 10 0 118 10 128 0 0 0 0 12 149 0 161 299
04:45 PM 0 0 9 9 0 114 7 121 0 0 0 0 6 163 0 169 299
05:00 PM 0 0 10 10 0 124 10 134 0 0 0 0 15 185 0 200 344
05:15 PM 0 0 16 16 0 128 14 142 0 0 0 0 7 165 0 172 330
Total Volume 0 0 45 45 0 484 41 525 0 0 0 0 40 662 0 702 1272
% App. Total 0 0 100 0 92.2 7.8 0 0 0 5.7 94.3 0
PHF .000 .000 .703 .703 .000 .945 .732 .924 .000 .000 .000 .000 .667 .895 .000 .878 .924
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-7 Item 3B - Page 558
File Name : 03_PLD_Shep_Frank PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Shepherd Lane/North Access
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Shepherd Lane Frank Sinatra Drive Frank Sinatra Drive North Access
Right
45
Thru
0
Left
0
InOut Total
81 45 126 Right41 Thru484 Left0 OutTotalIn662 525 1187 Left
0
Thru
0
Right
0
Out TotalIn
0 0 0 Left40 Thru662 Right0 TotalOutIn529 702 1231 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:45 PM 04:30 PM 04:00 PM 04:15 PM
+0 mins.0 0 9 9 0 118 10 128 0 0 0 0 9 170 0 179
+15 mins.0 0 10 10 0 114 7 121 0 0 0 0 12 149 0 161
+30 mins.0 0 16 16 0 124 10 134 0 0 0 0 6 163 0 169
+45 mins.0 0 13 13 0 128 14 142 0 0 0 0 15 185 0 200
Total Volume 0 0 48 48 0 484 41 525 0 0 0 0 42 667 0 709
% App. Total 0 0 100 0 92.2 7.8 0 0 0 5.9 94.1 0
PHF .000 .000 .750 .750 .000 .945 .732 .924 .000 .000 .000 .000 .700 .901 .000 .886
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-8 Item 3B - Page 559
File Name : 04_PLD_Port_Frank AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Portola Road
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 6 43 4 53 20 100 3 123 15 49 4 68 1 40 10 51 295
07:15 AM 8 69 4 81 23 140 4 167 19 54 8 81 5 52 25 82 411
07:30 AM 5 97 3 105 32 164 5 201 30 72 14 116 5 64 31 100 522
07:45 AM 13 102 4 119 38 161 4 203 31 101 23 155 3 75 34 112 589
Total 32 311 15 358 113 565 16 694 95 276 49 420 14 231 100 345 1817
08:00 AM 9 58 10 77 38 131 4 173 31 108 16 155 3 65 27 95 500
08:15 AM 6 73 3 82 22 141 5 168 27 81 12 120 6 63 23 92 462
08:30 AM 8 68 3 79 27 124 2 153 32 62 16 110 6 64 30 100 442
08:45 AM 15 65 3 83 35 129 8 172 22 68 17 107 3 96 24 123 485
Total 38 264 19 321 122 525 19 666 112 319 61 492 18 288 104 410 1889
Grand Total 70 575 34 679 235 1090 35 1360 207 595 110 912 32 519 204 755 3706
Apprch %10.3 84.7 5 17.3 80.1 2.6 22.7 65.2 12.1 4.2 68.7 27
Total %1.9 15.5 0.9 18.3 6.3 29.4 0.9 36.7 5.6 16.1 3 24.6 0.9 14 5.5 20.4
Portola Road
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 5 97 3 105 32 164 5 201 30 72 14 116 5 64 31 100 522
07:45 AM 13 102 4 119 38 161 4 203 31 101 23 155 3 75 34 112 589
08:00 AM 9 58 10 77 38 131 4 173 31 108 16 155 3 65 27 95 500
08:15 AM 6 73 3 82 22 141 5 168 27 81 12 120 6 63 23 92 462
Total Volume 33 330 20 383 130 597 18 745 119 362 65 546 17 267 115 399 2073
% App. Total 8.6 86.2 5.2 17.4 80.1 2.4 21.8 66.3 11.9 4.3 66.9 28.8
PHF .635 .809 .500 .805 .855 .910 .900 .917 .960 .838 .707 .881 .708 .890 .846 .891 .880
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-9 Item 3B - Page 560
File Name : 04_PLD_Port_Frank AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Portola Road Frank Sinatra Drive Frank Sinatra Drive Portola Road
Right
20
Thru
330
Left
33
InOut Total
397 383 780 Right18 Thru597 Left130 OutTotalIn365 745 1110 Left
119
Thru
362
Right
65
Out TotalIn
575 546 1121 Left17 Thru267 Right115 TotalOutIn736 399 1135 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 08:00 AM
+0 mins.5 97 3 105 32 164 5 201 30 72 14 116 3 65 27 95
+15 mins.13 102 4 119 38 161 4 203 31 101 23 155 6 63 23 92
+30 mins.9 58 10 77 38 131 4 173 31 108 16 155 6 64 30 100
+45 mins.6 73 3 82 22 141 5 168 27 81 12 120 3 96 24 123
Total Volume 33 330 20 383 130 597 18 745 119 362 65 546 18 288 104 410
% App. Total 8.6 86.2 5.2 17.4 80.1 2.4 21.8 66.3 11.9 4.4 70.2 25.4
PHF .635 .809 .500 .805 .855 .910 .900 .917 .960 .838 .707 .881 .750 .750 .867 .833
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-10 Item 3B - Page 561
File Name : 04_PLD_Port_Frank PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Portola Road
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 20 69 9 98 21 79 11 111 38 116 29 183 2 105 18 125 517
04:15 PM 30 79 9 118 20 90 5 115 29 95 20 144 2 160 25 187 564
04:30 PM 8 61 7 76 16 85 6 107 35 101 29 165 4 115 18 137 485
04:45 PM 14 61 8 83 32 82 1 115 36 95 24 155 2 131 23 156 509
Total 72 270 33 375 89 336 23 448 138 407 102 647 10 511 84 605 2075
05:00 PM 15 79 4 98 22 97 1 120 30 99 27 156 4 167 16 187 561
05:15 PM 14 60 5 79 27 94 6 127 39 89 32 160 3 146 27 176 542
05:30 PM 14 56 3 73 16 85 3 104 35 101 27 163 3 94 18 115 455
05:45 PM 4 59 0 63 18 69 13 100 32 79 20 131 6 97 20 123 417
Total 47 254 12 313 83 345 23 451 136 368 106 610 16 504 81 601 1975
Grand Total 119 524 45 688 172 681 46 899 274 775 208 1257 26 1015 165 1206 4050
Apprch %17.3 76.2 6.5 19.1 75.8 5.1 21.8 61.7 16.5 2.2 84.2 13.7
Total %2.9 12.9 1.1 17 4.2 16.8 1.1 22.2 6.8 19.1 5.1 31 0.6 25.1 4.1 29.8
Portola Road
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM
04:15 PM 30 79 9 118 20 90 5 115 29 95 20 144 2 160 25 187 564
04:30 PM 8 61 7 76 16 85 6 107 35 101 29 165 4 115 18 137 485
04:45 PM 14 61 8 83 32 82 1 115 36 95 24 155 2 131 23 156 509
05:00 PM 15 79 4 98 22 97 1 120 30 99 27 156 4 167 16 187 561
Total Volume 67 280 28 375 90 354 13 457 130 390 100 620 12 573 82 667 2119
% App. Total 17.9 74.7 7.5 19.7 77.5 2.8 21 62.9 16.1 1.8 85.9 12.3
PHF .558 .886 .778 .794 .703 .912 .542 .952 .903 .965 .862 .939 .750 .858 .820 .892 .939
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-11 Item 3B - Page 562
File Name : 04_PLD_Port_Frank PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Portola Road Frank Sinatra Drive Frank Sinatra Drive Portola Road
Right
28
Thru
280
Left
67
InOut Total
415 375 790 Right13 Thru354 Left90 OutTotalIn740 457 1197 Left
130
Thru
390
Right
100
Out TotalIn
452 620 1072 Left12 Thru573 Right82 TotalOutIn512 667 1179 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:00 PM 04:30 PM 04:00 PM 04:15 PM
+0 mins.20 69 9 98 16 85 6 107 38 116 29 183 2 160 25 187
+15 mins.30 79 9 118 32 82 1 115 29 95 20 144 4 115 18 137
+30 mins.8 61 7 76 22 97 1 120 35 101 29 165 2 131 23 156
+45 mins.14 61 8 83 27 94 6 127 36 95 24 155 4 167 16 187
Total Volume 72 270 33 375 97 358 14 469 138 407 102 647 12 573 82 667
% App. Total 19.2 72 8.8 20.7 76.3 3 21.3 62.9 15.8 1.8 85.9 12.3
PHF .600 .854 .917 .794 .758 .923 .583 .923 .908 .877 .879 .884 .750 .858 .820 .892
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-12 Item 3B - Page 563
File Name : 05_PLD_Cook_Frank AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Cook Street
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Cook Street
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Cook Street
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 5 173 57 235 6 41 10 57 18 90 5 113 20 20 14 54 459
07:15 AM 9 206 92 307 10 63 11 84 21 104 3 128 28 12 19 59 578
07:30 AM 9 256 103 368 19 59 7 85 24 154 24 202 37 29 36 102 757
07:45 AM 12 288 123 423 17 56 20 93 30 132 9 171 45 25 38 108 795
Total 35 923 375 1333 52 219 48 319 93 480 41 614 130 86 107 323 2589
08:00 AM 9 254 87 350 6 66 14 86 21 149 10 180 44 37 22 103 719
08:15 AM 11 237 72 320 15 52 6 73 25 135 6 166 28 24 22 74 633
08:30 AM 8 212 69 289 19 57 13 89 26 156 9 191 44 32 21 97 666
08:45 AM 4 253 71 328 8 50 12 70 33 162 8 203 42 37 46 125 726
Total 32 956 299 1287 48 225 45 318 105 602 33 740 158 130 111 399 2744
Grand Total 67 1879 674 2620 100 444 93 637 198 1082 74 1354 288 216 218 722 5333
Apprch %2.6 71.7 25.7 15.7 69.7 14.6 14.6 79.9 5.5 39.9 29.9 30.2
Total %1.3 35.2 12.6 49.1 1.9 8.3 1.7 11.9 3.7 20.3 1.4 25.4 5.4 4.1 4.1 13.5
Cook Street
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Cook Street
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 9 256 103 368 19 59 7 85 24 154 24 202 37 29 36 102 757
07:45 AM 12 288 123 423 17 56 20 93 30 132 9 171 45 25 38 108 795
08:00 AM 9 254 87 350 6 66 14 86 21 149 10 180 44 37 22 103 719
08:15 AM 11 237 72 320 15 52 6 73 25 135 6 166 28 24 22 74 633
Total Volume 41 1035 385 1461 57 233 47 337 100 570 49 719 154 115 118 387 2904
% App. Total 2.8 70.8 26.4 16.9 69.1 13.9 13.9 79.3 6.8 39.8 29.7 30.5
PHF .854 .898 .783 .863 .750 .883 .588 .906 .833 .925 .510 .890 .856 .777 .776 .896 .913
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-13 Item 3B - Page 564
File Name : 05_PLD_Cook_Frank AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Cook Street
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Cook Street Frank Sinatra Drive Frank Sinatra Drive Cook Street
Right
385
Thru
1035
Left
41
InOut Total
771 1461 2232 Right47 Thru233 Left57 OutTotalIn205 337 542 Left
100
Thru
570
Right
49
Out TotalIn
1210 719 1929 Left154 Thru115 Right118 TotalOutIn718 387 1105 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:15 AM 08:00 AM 08:00 AM
+0 mins.9 256 103 368 10 63 11 84 21 149 10 180 44 37 22 103
+15 mins.12 288 123 423 19 59 7 85 25 135 6 166 28 24 22 74
+30 mins.9 254 87 350 17 56 20 93 26 156 9 191 44 32 21 97
+45 mins.11 237 72 320 6 66 14 86 33 162 8 203 42 37 46 125
Total Volume 41 1035 385 1461 52 244 52 348 105 602 33 740 158 130 111 399
% App. Total 2.8 70.8 26.4 14.9 70.1 14.9 14.2 81.4 4.5 39.6 32.6 27.8
PHF .854 .898 .783 .863 .684 .924 .650 .935 .795 .929 .825 .911 .898 .878 .603 .798
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-14 Item 3B - Page 565
File Name : 05_PLD_Cook_Frank PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Cook Street
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Cook Street
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Cook Street
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 9 174 41 224 9 31 12 52 33 242 20 295 53 61 48 162 733
04:15 PM 19 190 45 254 14 41 8 63 33 220 22 275 85 71 38 194 786
04:30 PM 20 189 41 250 14 35 14 63 31 229 19 279 78 50 29 157 749
04:45 PM 21 167 54 242 5 38 6 49 22 175 16 213 86 58 33 177 681
Total 69 720 181 970 42 145 40 227 119 866 77 1062 302 240 148 690 2949
05:00 PM 15 201 43 259 9 49 11 69 33 258 17 308 83 78 36 197 833
05:15 PM 18 181 55 254 12 31 8 51 44 214 19 277 91 75 34 200 782
05:30 PM 11 179 47 237 15 40 4 59 30 226 16 272 51 44 29 124 692
05:45 PM 15 158 32 205 7 27 15 49 47 181 13 241 58 56 14 128 623
Total 59 719 177 955 43 147 38 228 154 879 65 1098 283 253 113 649 2930
Grand Total 128 1439 358 1925 85 292 78 455 273 1745 142 2160 585 493 261 1339 5879
Apprch %6.6 74.8 18.6 18.7 64.2 17.1 12.6 80.8 6.6 43.7 36.8 19.5
Total %2.2 24.5 6.1 32.7 1.4 5 1.3 7.7 4.6 29.7 2.4 36.7 10 8.4 4.4 22.8
Cook Street
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Cook Street
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM
04:15 PM 19 190 45 254 14 41 8 63 33 220 22 275 85 71 38 194 786
04:30 PM 20 189 41 250 14 35 14 63 31 229 19 279 78 50 29 157 749
04:45 PM 21 167 54 242 5 38 6 49 22 175 16 213 86 58 33 177 681
05:00 PM 15 201 43 259 9 49 11 69 33 258 17 308 83 78 36 197 833
Total Volume 75 747 183 1005 42 163 39 244 119 882 74 1075 332 257 136 725 3049
% App. Total 7.5 74.3 18.2 17.2 66.8 16 11.1 82 6.9 45.8 35.4 18.8
PHF .893 .929 .847 .970 .750 .832 .696 .884 .902 .855 .841 .873 .965 .824 .895 .920 .915
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-15 Item 3B - Page 566
File Name : 05_PLD_Cook_Frank PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Cook Street
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Cook Street Frank Sinatra Drive Frank Sinatra Drive Cook Street
Right
183
Thru
747
Left
75
InOut Total
1253 1005 2258 Right39 Thru163 Left42 OutTotalIn406 244 650 Left
119
Thru
882
Right
74
Out TotalIn
925 1075 2000 Left332 Thru257 Right136 TotalOutIn465 725 1190 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:15 PM 04:15 PM 05:00 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins.19 190 45 254 14 41 8 63 33 258 17 308 78 50 29 157
+15 mins.20 189 41 250 14 35 14 63 44 214 19 277 86 58 33 177
+30 mins.21 167 54 242 5 38 6 49 30 226 16 272 83 78 36 197
+45 mins.15 201 43 259 9 49 11 69 47 181 13 241 91 75 34 200
Total Volume 75 747 183 1005 42 163 39 244 154 879 65 1098 338 261 132 731
% App. Total 7.5 74.3 18.2 17.2 66.8 16 14 80.1 5.9 46.2 35.7 18.1
PHF .893 .929 .847 .970 .750 .832 .696 .884 .819 .852 .855 .891 .929 .837 .917 .914
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-16 Item 3B - Page 567
File Name : 06_PLD_Port_Ret N AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Retreat Circle North
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Portola Road
Southbound
Retreat Circle North
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 0 72 72 0 2 2 67 1 68 142
07:15 AM 1 123 124 0 4 4 75 0 75 203
07:30 AM 1 155 156 0 1 1 119 1 120 277
07:45 AM 1 166 167 0 3 3 155 1 156 326
Total 3 516 519 0 10 10 416 3 419 948
08:00 AM 0 121 121 0 2 2 143 1 144 267
08:15 AM 1 114 115 0 3 3 110 1 111 229
08:30 AM 1 129 130 0 4 4 110 1 111 245
08:45 AM 0 117 117 0 2 2 116 1 117 236
Total 2 481 483 0 11 11 479 4 483 977
Grand Total 5 997 1002 0 21 21 895 7 902 1925
Apprch %0.5 99.5 0 100 99.2 0.8
Total %0.3 51.8 52.1 0 1.1 1.1 46.5 0.4 46.9
Portola Road
Southbound
Retreat Circle North
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 1 155 156 0 1 1 119 1 120 277
07:45 AM 1 166 167 0 3 3 155 1 156 326
08:00 AM 0 121 121 0 2 2 143 1 144 267
08:15 AM 1 114 115 0 3 3 110 1 111 229
Total Volume 3 556 559 0 9 9 527 4 531 1099
% App. Total 0.5 99.5 0 100 99.2 0.8
PHF .750 .837 .837 .000 .750 .750 .850 1.00 .851 .843
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-17 Item 3B - Page 568
File Name : 06_PLD_Port_Ret N AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Retreat Circle North
Weather: Clear
Portola Road Retreat Circle North Portola Road
Thru
556
Left
3
InOut Total
536 559 1095 Right9 Left0 OutTotalIn7 9 16 Thru
527
Right
4
Out TotalIn
556 531 1087
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:15 AM 07:45 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins.1 123 124 0 3 3 119 1 120
+15 mins.1 155 156 0 2 2 155 1 156
+30 mins.1 166 167 0 3 3 143 1 144
+45 mins.0 121 121 0 4 4 110 1 111
Total Volume 3 565 568 0 12 12 527 4 531
% App. Total 0.5 99.5 0 100 99.2 0.8
PHF .750 .851 .850 .000 .750 .750 .850 1.000 .851
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-18 Item 3B - Page 569
File Name : 06_PLD_Port_Ret N PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Retreat Circle North
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Portola Road
Southbound
Retreat Circle North
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 1 103 104 0 1 1 188 2 190 295
04:15 PM 1 125 126 0 4 4 137 1 138 268
04:30 PM 1 89 90 0 4 4 175 1 176 270
04:45 PM 1 113 114 0 5 5 144 1 145 264
Total 4 430 434 0 14 14 644 5 649 1097
05:00 PM 4 115 119 1 2 3 165 1 166 288
05:15 PM 2 109 111 0 3 3 146 1 147 261
05:30 PM 3 93 96 0 8 8 161 3 164 268
05:45 PM 2 89 91 0 2 2 123 3 126 219
Total 11 406 417 1 15 16 595 8 603 1036
Grand Total 15 836 851 1 29 30 1239 13 1252 2133
Apprch %1.8 98.2 3.3 96.7 99 1
Total %0.7 39.2 39.9 0 1.4 1.4 58.1 0.6 58.7
Portola Road
Southbound
Retreat Circle North
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 1 103 104 0 1 1 188 2 190 295
04:15 PM 1 125 126 0 4 4 137 1 138 268
04:30 PM 1 89 90 0 4 4 175 1 176 270
04:45 PM 1 113 114 0 5 5 144 1 145 264
Total Volume 4 430 434 0 14 14 644 5 649 1097
% App. Total 0.9 99.1 0 100 99.2 0.8
PHF 1.00 .860 .861 .000 .700 .700 .856 .625 .854 .930
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-19 Item 3B - Page 570
File Name : 06_PLD_Port_Ret N PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Retreat Circle North
Weather: Clear
Portola Road Retreat Circle North Portola Road
Thru
430
Left
4
InOut Total
658 434 1092 Right14 Left0 OutTotalIn9 14 23 Thru
644
Right
5
Out TotalIn
430 649 1079
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:15 PM 04:45 PM 04:00 PM
+0 mins.1 125 126 0 5 5 188 2 190
+15 mins.1 89 90 1 2 3 137 1 138
+30 mins.1 113 114 0 3 3 175 1 176
+45 mins.4 115 119 0 8 8 144 1 145
Total Volume 7 442 449 1 18 19 644 5 649
% App. Total 1.6 98.4 5.3 94.7 99.2 0.8
PHF .438 .884 .891 .250 .563 .594 .856 .625 .854
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-20 Item 3B - Page 571
File Name : 07_PLD_Port_Ret S AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Retreat Circle South
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Portola Road
Southbound
Retreat Circle South
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 0 71 71 0 0 0 69 0 69 140
07:15 AM 0 125 125 0 0 0 77 0 77 202
07:30 AM 0 155 155 0 0 0 118 0 118 273
07:45 AM 0 163 163 0 0 0 153 0 153 316
Total 0 514 514 0 0 0 417 0 417 931
08:00 AM 0 122 122 0 0 0 144 0 144 266
08:15 AM 0 115 115 0 0 0 112 0 112 227
08:30 AM 0 127 127 0 0 0 113 0 113 240
08:45 AM 0 118 118 0 0 0 115 0 115 233
Total 0 482 482 0 0 0 484 0 484 966
Grand Total 0 996 996 0 0 0 901 0 901 1897
Apprch %0 100 0 0 100 0
Total %0 52.5 52.5 0 0 0 47.5 0 47.5
Portola Road
Southbound
Retreat Circle South
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 0 155 155 0 0 0 118 0 118 273
07:45 AM 0 163 163 0 0 0 153 0 153 316
08:00 AM 0 122 122 0 0 0 144 0 144 266
08:15 AM 0 115 115 0 0 0 112 0 112 227
Total Volume 0 555 555 0 0 0 527 0 527 1082
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .851 .851 .000 .000 .000 .861 .000 .861 .856
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-21 Item 3B - Page 572
File Name : 07_PLD_Port_Ret S AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Retreat Circle South
Weather: Clear
Portola Road Retreat Circle South Portola Road
Thru
555
Left
0
InOut Total
527 555 1082 Right0 Left0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Thru
527
Right
0
Out TotalIn
555 527 1082
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:15 AM 07:00 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins.0 125 125 0 0 0 118 0 118
+15 mins.0 155 155 0 0 0 153 0 153
+30 mins.0 163 163 0 0 0 144 0 144
+45 mins.0 122 122 0 0 0 112 0 112
Total Volume 0 565 565 0 0 0 527 0 527
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .867 .867 .000 .000 .000 .861 .000 .861
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-22 Item 3B - Page 573
File Name : 07_PLD_Port_Ret S PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Retreat Circle South
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Portola Road
Southbound
Retreat Circle South
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 0 105 105 0 0 0 187 0 187 292
04:15 PM 0 121 121 0 0 0 139 0 139 260
04:30 PM 0 92 92 0 0 0 172 0 172 264
04:45 PM 0 113 113 0 0 0 149 0 149 262
Total 0 431 431 0 0 0 647 0 647 1078
05:00 PM 0 115 115 0 0 0 163 0 163 278
05:15 PM 0 111 111 0 0 0 147 0 147 258
05:30 PM 0 91 91 0 0 0 165 0 165 256
05:45 PM 0 87 87 0 0 0 128 0 128 215
Total 0 404 404 0 0 0 603 0 603 1007
Grand Total 0 835 835 0 0 0 1250 0 1250 2085
Apprch %0 100 0 0 100 0
Total %0 40 40 0 0 0 60 0 60
Portola Road
Southbound
Retreat Circle South
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 105 105 0 0 0 187 0 187 292
04:15 PM 0 121 121 0 0 0 139 0 139 260
04:30 PM 0 92 92 0 0 0 172 0 172 264
04:45 PM 0 113 113 0 0 0 149 0 149 262
Total Volume 0 431 431 0 0 0 647 0 647 1078
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .890 .890 .000 .000 .000 .865 .000 .865 .923
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-23 Item 3B - Page 574
File Name : 07_PLD_Port_Ret S PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Retreat Circle South
Weather: Clear
Portola Road Retreat Circle South Portola Road
Thru
431
Left
0
InOut Total
647 431 1078 Right0 Left0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Thru
647
Right
0
Out TotalIn
431 647 1078
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:15 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM
+0 mins.0 121 121 0 0 0 187 0 187
+15 mins.0 92 92 0 0 0 139 0 139
+30 mins.0 113 113 0 0 0 172 0 172
+45 mins.0 115 115 0 0 0 149 0 149
Total Volume 0 441 441 0 0 0 647 0 647
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .911 .911 .000 .000 .000 .865 .000 .865
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-24 Item 3B - Page 575
File Name : 08_PLD_Port_Willow AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Willow Ridge
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Portola Road
Southbound
Willow Ridge
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 4 72 76 4 4 8 69 5 74 158
07:15 AM 10 108 118 7 4 11 72 9 81 210
07:30 AM 9 150 159 13 8 21 120 9 129 309
07:45 AM 9 170 179 3 6 9 145 9 154 342
Total 32 500 532 27 22 49 406 32 438 1019
08:00 AM 6 125 131 7 3 10 144 5 149 290
08:15 AM 9 105 114 8 3 11 107 5 112 237
08:30 AM 10 115 125 7 7 14 107 4 111 250
08:45 AM 6 123 129 11 8 19 109 6 115 263
Total 31 468 499 33 21 54 467 20 487 1040
Grand Total 63 968 1031 60 43 103 873 52 925 2059
Apprch %6.1 93.9 58.3 41.7 94.4 5.6
Total %3.1 47 50.1 2.9 2.1 5 42.4 2.5 44.9
Portola Road
Southbound
Willow Ridge
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 9 150 159 13 8 21 120 9 129 309
07:45 AM 9 170 179 3 6 9 145 9 154 342
08:00 AM 6 125 131 7 3 10 144 5 149 290
08:15 AM 9 105 114 8 3 11 107 5 112 237
Total Volume 33 550 583 31 20 51 516 28 544 1178
% App. Total 5.7 94.3 60.8 39.2 94.9 5.1
PHF .917 .809 .814 .596 .625 .607 .890 .778 .883 .861
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-25 Item 3B - Page 576
File Name : 08_PLD_Port_Willow AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Willow Ridge
Weather: Clear
Portola Road Willow Ridge Portola Road
Thru
550
Left
33
InOut Total
536 583 1119 Right20 Left31 OutTotalIn61 51 112 Thru
516
Right
28
Out TotalIn
581 544 1125
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:15 AM 08:00 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins.10 108 118 7 3 10 120 9 129
+15 mins.9 150 159 8 3 11 145 9 154
+30 mins.9 170 179 7 7 14 144 5 149
+45 mins.6 125 131 11 8 19 107 5 112
Total Volume 34 553 587 33 21 54 516 28 544
% App. Total 5.8 94.2 61.1 38.9 94.9 5.1
PHF .850 .813 .820 .750 .656 .711 .890 .778 .883
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-26 Item 3B - Page 577
File Name : 08_PLD_Port_Willow PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Willow Ridge
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Portola Road
Southbound
Willow Ridge
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 9 100 109 13 12 25 178 9 187 321
04:15 PM 8 116 124 10 6 16 137 8 145 285
04:30 PM 6 94 100 6 4 10 176 11 187 297
04:45 PM 7 108 115 16 5 21 137 12 149 285
Total 30 418 448 45 27 72 628 40 668 1188
05:00 PM 3 117 120 10 7 17 157 13 170 307
05:15 PM 5 112 117 16 9 25 139 9 148 290
05:30 PM 7 79 86 9 9 18 158 18 176 280
05:45 PM 7 88 95 13 6 19 123 4 127 241
Total 22 396 418 48 31 79 577 44 621 1118
Grand Total 52 814 866 93 58 151 1205 84 1289 2306
Apprch %6 94 61.6 38.4 93.5 6.5
Total %2.3 35.3 37.6 4 2.5 6.5 52.3 3.6 55.9
Portola Road
Southbound
Willow Ridge
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 9 100 109 13 12 25 178 9 187 321
04:15 PM 8 116 124 10 6 16 137 8 145 285
04:30 PM 6 94 100 6 4 10 176 11 187 297
04:45 PM 7 108 115 16 5 21 137 12 149 285
Total Volume 30 418 448 45 27 72 628 40 668 1188
% App. Total 6.7 93.3 62.5 37.5 94 6
PHF .833 .901 .903 .703 .563 .720 .882 .833 .893 .925
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-27 Item 3B - Page 578
File Name : 08_PLD_Port_Willow PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Willow Ridge
Weather: Clear
Portola Road Willow Ridge Portola Road
Thru
418
Left
30
InOut Total
655 448 1103 Right27 Left45 OutTotalIn70 72 142 Thru
628
Right
40
Out TotalIn
463 668 1131
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:15 PM 04:45 PM 04:00 PM
+0 mins.8 116 124 16 5 21 178 9 187
+15 mins.6 94 100 10 7 17 137 8 145
+30 mins.7 108 115 16 9 25 176 11 187
+45 mins.3 117 120 9 9 18 137 12 149
Total Volume 24 435 459 51 30 81 628 40 668
% App. Total 5.2 94.8 63 37 94 6
PHF .750 .929 .925 .797 .833 .810 .882 .833 .893
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-28 Item 3B - Page 579
File Name : 09_PLD_Port_Country AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Country Club Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Portola Road
Southbound
Country Club Drive
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Country Club Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 15 47 8 70 22 91 8 121 9 53 19 81 2 40 13 55 327
07:15 AM 17 89 6 112 27 109 12 148 25 73 24 122 2 77 34 113 495
07:30 AM 14 122 6 142 40 158 16 214 29 102 25 156 5 76 39 120 632
07:45 AM 19 138 6 163 64 190 25 279 63 130 42 235 10 89 34 133 810
Total 65 396 26 487 153 548 61 762 126 358 110 594 19 282 120 421 2264
08:00 AM 18 91 13 122 31 177 18 226 38 98 31 167 14 91 31 136 651
08:15 AM 16 85 9 110 33 163 17 213 46 97 28 171 8 86 41 135 629
08:30 AM 12 103 12 127 32 155 22 209 51 82 33 166 8 92 45 145 647
08:45 AM 15 98 10 123 38 154 16 208 57 87 33 177 8 98 57 163 671
Total 61 377 44 482 134 649 73 856 192 364 125 681 38 367 174 579 2598
Grand Total 126 773 70 969 287 1197 134 1618 318 722 235 1275 57 649 294 1000 4862
Apprch %13 79.8 7.2 17.7 74 8.3 24.9 56.6 18.4 5.7 64.9 29.4
Total %2.6 15.9 1.4 19.9 5.9 24.6 2.8 33.3 6.5 14.8 4.8 26.2 1.2 13.3 6 20.6
Portola Road
Southbound
Country Club Drive
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Country Club Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 19 138 6 163 64 190 25 279 63 130 42 235 10 89 34 133 810
08:00 AM 18 91 13 122 31 177 18 226 38 98 31 167 14 91 31 136 651
08:15 AM 16 85 9 110 33 163 17 213 46 97 28 171 8 86 41 135 629
08:30 AM 12 103 12 127 32 155 22 209 51 82 33 166 8 92 45 145 647
Total Volume 65 417 40 522 160 685 82 927 198 407 134 739 40 358 151 549 2737
% App. Total 12.5 79.9 7.7 17.3 73.9 8.8 26.8 55.1 18.1 7.3 65.2 27.5
PHF .855 .755 .769 .801 .625 .901 .820 .831 .786 .783 .798 .786 .714 .973 .839 .947 .845
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-29 Item 3B - Page 580
File Name : 09_PLD_Port_Country AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Country Club Drive
Weather: Clear
Portola Road Country Club Drive Country Club Drive Portola Road
Right
40
Thru
417
Left
65
InOut Total
529 522 1051 Right82 Thru685 Left160 OutTotalIn557 927 1484 Left
198
Thru
407
Right
134
Out TotalIn
728 739 1467 Left40 Thru358 Right151 TotalOutIn923 549 1472 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 08:00 AM
+0 mins.17 89 6 112 40 158 16 214 63 130 42 235 14 91 31 136
+15 mins.14 122 6 142 64 190 25 279 38 98 31 167 8 86 41 135
+30 mins.19 138 6 163 31 177 18 226 46 97 28 171 8 92 45 145
+45 mins.18 91 13 122 33 163 17 213 51 82 33 166 8 98 57 163
Total Volume 68 440 31 539 168 688 76 932 198 407 134 739 38 367 174 579
% App. Total 12.6 81.6 5.8 18 73.8 8.2 26.8 55.1 18.1 6.6 63.4 30.1
PHF .895 .797 .596 .827 .656 .905 .760 .835 .786 .783 .798 .786 .679 .936 .763 .888
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-30 Item 3B - Page 581
File Name : 09_PLD_Port_Country PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Country Club Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Portola Road
Southbound
Country Club Drive
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Country Club Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 24 87 10 121 25 125 24 174 51 125 33 209 10 177 41 228 732
04:15 PM 15 92 19 126 55 126 22 203 31 101 41 173 7 205 40 252 754
04:30 PM 12 79 8 99 46 121 37 204 45 122 48 215 7 190 45 242 760
04:45 PM 18 95 13 126 45 122 29 196 36 89 42 167 14 189 44 247 736
Total 69 353 50 472 171 494 112 777 163 437 164 764 38 761 170 969 2982
05:00 PM 23 92 14 129 25 146 31 202 44 122 46 212 5 192 44 241 784
05:15 PM 19 111 15 145 61 142 24 227 38 112 34 184 10 170 35 215 771
05:30 PM 11 71 9 91 40 129 17 186 37 130 25 192 12 173 37 222 691
05:45 PM 14 80 6 100 46 104 15 165 31 92 20 143 9 118 21 148 556
Total 67 354 44 465 172 521 87 780 150 456 125 731 36 653 137 826 2802
Grand Total 136 707 94 937 343 1015 199 1557 313 893 289 1495 74 1414 307 1795 5784
Apprch %14.5 75.5 10 22 65.2 12.8 20.9 59.7 19.3 4.1 78.8 17.1
Total %2.4 12.2 1.6 16.2 5.9 17.5 3.4 26.9 5.4 15.4 5 25.8 1.3 24.4 5.3 31
Portola Road
Southbound
Country Club Drive
Westbound
Portola Road
Northbound
Country Club Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 12 79 8 99 46 121 37 204 45 122 48 215 7 190 45 242 760
04:45 PM 18 95 13 126 45 122 29 196 36 89 42 167 14 189 44 247 736
05:00 PM 23 92 14 129 25 146 31 202 44 122 46 212 5 192 44 241 784
05:15 PM 19 111 15 145 61 142 24 227 38 112 34 184 10 170 35 215 771
Total Volume 72 377 50 499 177 531 121 829 163 445 170 778 36 741 168 945 3051
% App. Total 14.4 75.6 10 21.4 64.1 14.6 21 57.2 21.9 3.8 78.4 17.8
PHF .783 .849 .833 .860 .725 .909 .818 .913 .906 .912 .885 .905 .643 .965 .933 .956 .973
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-31 Item 3B - Page 582
File Name : 09_PLD_Port_Country PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Portola Road
E/W: Country Club Drive
Weather: Clear
Portola Road Country Club Drive Country Club Drive Portola Road
Right
50
Thru
377
Left
72
InOut Total
602 499 1101 Right121 Thru531 Left177 OutTotalIn983 829 1812 Left
163
Thru
445
Right
170
Out TotalIn
722 778 1500 Left36 Thru741 Right168 TotalOutIn744 945 1689 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:15 PM
+0 mins.12 79 8 99 46 121 37 204 45 122 48 215 7 205 40 252
+15 mins.18 95 13 126 45 122 29 196 36 89 42 167 7 190 45 242
+30 mins.23 92 14 129 25 146 31 202 44 122 46 212 14 189 44 247
+45 mins.19 111 15 145 61 142 24 227 38 112 34 184 5 192 44 241
Total Volume 72 377 50 499 177 531 121 829 163 445 170 778 33 776 173 982
% App. Total 14.4 75.6 10 21.4 64.1 14.6 21 57.2 21.9 3.4 79 17.6
PHF .783 .849 .833 .860 .725 .909 .818 .913 .906 .912 .885 .905 .589 .946 .961 .974
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-32 Item 3B - Page 583
File Name : 11_PLD_Cook_Uni AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Cook Street
E/W: University Park Drive/Berger Dr W
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Cook Street
Southbound
Berger Drive W
Westbound
Cook Street
Northbound
University Park Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 6 215 5 226 0 0 1 1 4 110 2 116 5 1 3 9 352
07:15 AM 5 331 3 339 0 0 3 3 3 150 0 153 10 0 7 17 512
07:30 AM 14 373 1 388 0 0 2 2 1 184 2 187 6 0 4 10 587
07:45 AM 13 421 8 442 2 1 3 6 3 177 3 183 9 0 3 12 643
Total 38 1340 17 1395 2 1 9 12 11 621 7 639 30 1 17 48 2094
08:00 AM 15 327 3 345 1 0 2 3 3 196 5 204 6 0 3 9 561
08:15 AM 6 319 5 330 0 0 3 3 5 161 1 167 4 0 6 10 510
08:30 AM 19 294 10 323 1 1 3 5 11 198 0 209 7 0 0 7 544
08:45 AM 31 342 4 377 1 2 5 8 5 193 6 204 7 0 1 8 597
Total 71 1282 22 1375 3 3 13 19 24 748 12 784 24 0 10 34 2212
Grand Total 109 2622 39 2770 5 4 22 31 35 1369 19 1423 54 1 27 82 4306
Apprch %3.9 94.7 1.4 16.1 12.9 71 2.5 96.2 1.3 65.9 1.2 32.9
Total %2.5 60.9 0.9 64.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.8 31.8 0.4 33 1.3 0 0.6 1.9
Cook Street
Southbound
Berger Drive W
Westbound
Cook Street
Northbound
University Park Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 5 331 3 339 0 0 3 3 3 150 0 153 10 0 7 17 512
07:30 AM 14 373 1 388 0 0 2 2 1 184 2 187 6 0 4 10 587
07:45 AM 13 421 8 442 2 1 3 6 3 177 3 183 9 0 3 12 643
08:00 AM 15 327 3 345 1 0 2 3 3 196 5 204 6 0 3 9 561
Total Volume 47 1452 15 1514 3 1 10 14 10 707 10 727 31 0 17 48 2303
% App. Total 3.1 95.9 1 21.4 7.1 71.4 1.4 97.2 1.4 64.6 0 35.4
PHF .783 .862 .469 .856 .375 .250 .833 .583 .833 .902 .500 .891 .775 .000 .607 .706 .895
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-33 Item 3B - Page 584
File Name : 11_PLD_Cook_Uni AM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Cook Street
E/W: University Park Drive/Berger Dr W
Weather: Clear
Cook Street University Park Drive Berger Drive W Cook Street
Right
15
Thru
1452
Left
47
InOut Total
748 1514 2262 Right10 Thru1 Left3 OutTotalIn57 14 71 Left
10
Thru
707
Right
10
Out TotalIn
1472 727 2199 Left31 Thru0 Right17 TotalOutIn26 48 74 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:15 AM 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 07:00 AM
+0 mins.5 331 3 339 1 0 2 3 3 196 5 204 5 1 3 9
+15 mins.14 373 1 388 0 0 3 3 5 161 1 167 10 0 7 17
+30 mins.13 421 8 442 1 1 3 5 11 198 0 209 6 0 4 10
+45 mins.15 327 3 345 1 2 5 8 5 193 6 204 9 0 3 12
Total Volume 47 1452 15 1514 3 3 13 19 24 748 12 784 30 1 17 48
% App. Total 3.1 95.9 1 15.8 15.8 68.4 3.1 95.4 1.5 62.5 2.1 35.4
PHF .783 .862 .469 .856 .750 .375 .650 .594 .545 .944 .500 .938 .750 .250 .607 .706
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-34 Item 3B - Page 585
File Name : 11_PLD_Cook_Uni PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 1
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Cook Street
E/W: University Park Drive/Berger Dr W
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Cook Street
Southbound
Berger Drive W
Westbound
Cook Street
Northbound
University Park Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 9 239 5 253 4 2 7 13 9 297 3 309 5 1 5 11 586
04:15 PM 11 237 4 252 0 0 2 2 9 284 2 295 7 0 6 13 562
04:30 PM 8 245 12 265 2 0 2 4 14 292 2 308 9 0 10 19 596
04:45 PM 4 234 13 251 1 1 5 7 6 267 0 273 15 1 9 25 556
Total 32 955 34 1021 7 3 16 26 38 1140 7 1185 36 2 30 68 2300
05:00 PM 15 268 6 289 4 1 15 20 10 341 2 353 13 2 3 18 680
05:15 PM 17 220 10 247 9 4 34 47 11 281 5 297 10 1 8 19 610
05:30 PM 17 217 6 240 2 2 8 12 6 261 5 272 9 0 5 14 538
05:45 PM 6 203 4 213 0 0 5 5 6 237 0 243 11 1 3 15 476
Total 55 908 26 989 15 7 62 84 33 1120 12 1165 43 4 19 66 2304
Grand Total 87 1863 60 2010 22 10 78 110 71 2260 19 2350 79 6 49 134 4604
Apprch %4.3 92.7 3 20 9.1 70.9 3 96.2 0.8 59 4.5 36.6
Total %1.9 40.5 1.3 43.7 0.5 0.2 1.7 2.4 1.5 49.1 0.4 51 1.7 0.1 1.1 2.9
Cook Street
Southbound
Berger Drive W
Westbound
Cook Street
Northbound
University Park Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 8 245 12 265 2 0 2 4 14 292 2 308 9 0 10 19 596
04:45 PM 4 234 13 251 1 1 5 7 6 267 0 273 15 1 9 25 556
05:00 PM 15 268 6 289 4 1 15 20 10 341 2 353 13 2 3 18 680
05:15 PM 17 220 10 247 9 4 34 47 11 281 5 297 10 1 8 19 610
Total Volume 44 967 41 1052 16 6 56 78 41 1181 9 1231 47 4 30 81 2442
% App. Total 4.2 91.9 3.9 20.5 7.7 71.8 3.3 95.9 0.7 58 4.9 37
PHF .647 .902 .788 .910 .444 .375 .412 .415 .732 .866 .450 .872 .783 .500 .750 .810 .898
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-35 Item 3B - Page 586
File Name : 11_PLD_Cook_Uni PM
Site Code : 05122144
Start Date : 3/9/2022
Page No : 2
City of Palm Desert
N/S: Cook Street
E/W: University Park Drive/Berger Dr W
Weather: Clear
Cook Street University Park Drive Berger Drive W Cook Street
Right
41
Thru
967
Left
44
InOut Total
1284 1052 2336 Right56 Thru6 Left16 OutTotalIn57 78 135 Left
41
Thru
1181
Right
9
Out TotalIn
1013 1231 2244 Left47 Thru4 Right30 TotalOutIn88 81 169 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:15 PM 04:45 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins.11 237 4 252 1 1 5 7 14 292 2 308 9 0 10 19
+15 mins.8 245 12 265 4 1 15 20 6 267 0 273 15 1 9 25
+30 mins.4 234 13 251 9 4 34 47 10 341 2 353 13 2 3 18
+45 mins.15 268 6 289 2 2 8 12 11 281 5 297 10 1 8 19
Total Volume 38 984 35 1057 16 8 62 86 41 1181 9 1231 47 4 30 81
% App. Total 3.6 93.1 3.3 18.6 9.3 72.1 3.3 95.9 0.7 58 4.9 37
PHF .633 .918 .673 .914 .444 .500 .456 .457 .732 .866 .450 .872 .783 .500 .750 .810
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
1.2-36 Item 3B - Page 587
Page 1
City of Palm Desert
Frank Sinatra Drive
W/ Portola Avenue
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
PLDFSWPO
Site Code: 051-22144
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: counts@countsunlimited.com
Start 3/9/2022 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals
Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon
12:00 4 96 4 127
12:15 4 44 5 114
12:30 4 107 3 121
12:45 7 100 19 347 4 128 16 490 35 837
01:00 7 120 0 130
01:15 2 126 5 109
01:30 3 139 1 141
01:45 1 139 13 524 2 139 8 519 21 1043
02:00 2 127 1 124
02:15 2 124 0 146
02:30 3 175 2 127
02:45 7 176 14 602 1 122 4 519 18 1121
03:00 1 178 4 128
03:15 3 141 0 127
03:30 1 168 2 123
03:45 2 172 7 659 5 137 11 515 18 1174
04:00 2 143 5 153
04:15 4 168 4 142
04:30 9 179 16 127
04:45 11 133 26 623 21 107 46 529 72 1152
05:00 6 196 14 108
05:15 11 167 31 135
05:30 12 146 40 128
05:45 14 129 43 638 47 106 132 477 175 1115
06:00 26 101 55 69
06:15 30 73 71 93
06:30 46 80 95 80
06:45 44 53 146 307 162 73 383 315 529 622
07:00 63 70 114 57
07:15 75 54 154 57
07:30 102 71 194 39
07:45 131 52 371 247 197 65 659 218 1030 465
08:00 105 64 172 42
08:15 99 43 171 24
08:30 110 55 175 31
08:45 96 42 410 204 149 30 667 127 1077 331
09:00 89 55 137 23
09:15 100 49 120 26
09:30 116 41 136 38
09:45 102 36 407 181 139 37 532 124 939 305
10:00 117 24 146 17
10:15 82 27 139 18
10:30 102 30 126 11
10:45 89 17 390 98 133 17 544 63 934 161
11:00 128 15 130 10
11:15 95 9 108 8
11:30 122 10 131 13
11:45 109 13 454 47 118 3 487 34 941 81
Total 2300 4477 2300 4477 3489 3930 3489 3930 5789 8407
Combined
Total 6777 6777 7419 7419 14196
AM Peak - 11:00 --- 07:30 -----
Vol.- 454 --- 734 -----
P.H.F. 0.887 0.931
PM Peak -- 04:15 --- 03:45 ----
Vol.-- 676 --- 559 ----
P.H.F. 0.862 0.913
Percentag
e 33.9% 66.1% 47.0% 53.0%
ADT/AADT ADT 14,196 AADT 14,196
1.2-37 Item 3B - Page 588
Page 1
City of Palm Desert
Portila Avenue
S/ Frank Sinatra Drive
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
PLDPOSFS
Site Code: 051-22144
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: counts@countsunlimited.com
Start 3/9/2022 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals
Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon
12:00 6 140 4 97
12:15 9 177 2 99
12:30 4 146 6 107
12:45 3 131 22 594 3 114 15 417 37 1011
01:00 1 134 1 119
01:15 4 158 9 122
01:30 2 195 3 123
01:45 7 185 14 672 3 136 16 500 30 1172
02:00 1 199 1 120
02:15 2 198 5 148
02:30 1 199 2 151
02:45 2 240 6 836 2 152 10 571 16 1407
03:00 3 243 1 108
03:15 5 220 1 134
03:30 2 259 4 114
03:45 2 229 12 951 6 138 12 494 24 1445
04:00 5 271 7 112
04:15 5 197 8 138
04:30 11 188 13 119
04:45 14 155 35 811 21 131 49 500 84 1311
05:00 11 194 9 118
05:15 21 186 8 123
05:30 17 153 12 98
05:45 26 122 75 655 26 88 55 427 130 1082
06:00 35 100 31 71
06:15 39 83 55 67
06:30 59 84 51 65
06:45 82 76 215 343 67 61 204 264 419 607
07:00 59 80 95 45
07:15 83 70 104 68
07:30 111 57 141 42
07:45 126 55 379 262 186 38 526 193 905 455
08:00 180 57 127 48
08:15 157 43 117 39
08:30 149 41 124 27
08:45 157 40 643 181 127 27 495 141 1138 322
09:00 128 40 105 41
09:15 147 30 103 20
09:30 108 39 92 25
09:45 136 35 519 144 112 17 412 103 931 247
10:00 136 19 103 28
10:15 170 19 99 19
10:30 132 23 118 17
10:45 149 16 587 77 95 19 415 83 1002 160
11:00 167 13 102 12
11:15 149 11 103 11
11:30 167 7 114 5
11:45 190 5 673 36 105 8 424 36 1097 72
Total 3180 5562 3180 5562 2633 3729 2633 3729 5813 9291
Combined
Total 8742 8742 6362 6362 15104
AM Peak - 11:00 --- 07:30 -----
Vol.- 673 --- 571 -----
P.H.F. 0.886 0.767
PM Peak -- 03:15 --- 02:00 ----
Vol.-- 979 --- 571 ----
P.H.F. 0.903 0.939
Percentag
e 36.4% 63.6% 41.4% 58.6%
ADT/AADT ADT 15,104 AADT 15,104
1.2-38 Item 3B - Page 589
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 3.2:
EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
Item 3B - Page 590
Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Traffic Analysis
14677‐03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Item 3B - Page 591
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
1: Monterey Av. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)41 272 106 182 575 63 73 580 34 51 1181 92
Future Volume (vph)41 272 106 182 575 63 73 580 34 51 1181 92
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)160 150 140 140 250 150 200 175
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 1
Taper Length (ft)100 120 120 120
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 55 55
Link Distance (ft)1182 5371 1281 1753
Travel Time (s)16.1 73.2 15.9 21.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)46 302 118 202 639 70 81 644 38 57 1312 102
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 302 118 202 639 70 81 682 0 57 1312 102
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 6
Detector Phase 74438852 166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 21.0 9.5 21.0 21.0
Total Split (%)15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 15.8% 35.0% 15.8% 35.0% 35.0%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s)1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Monterey Av. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
3.2-1 Item 3B - Page 592
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
1: Monterey Av. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 272 106 182 575 63 73 580 34 51 1181 92
Future Volume (veh/h) 41 272 106 182 575 63 73 580 34 51 1181 92
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 302 118 202 639 70 81 644 38 57 1312 102
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 154 679 301 288 817 362 213 1929 113 177 1942 601
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.39 0.39 0.05 0.38 0.38
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1573 3456 3554 1575 3456 4932 289 3456 5106 1579
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 302 118 202 639 70 81 443 239 57 1312 102
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1573 1728 1777 1575 1728 1702 1817 1728 1702 1579
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 4.5 3.9 3.4 10.1 2.1 1.4 5.5 5.5 1.0 12.9 2.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 4.5 3.9 3.4 10.1 2.1 1.4 5.5 5.5 1.0 12.9 2.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 154 679 301 288 817 362 213 1331 711 177 1942 601
V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.44 0.39 0.70 0.78 0.19 0.38 0.33 0.34 0.32 0.68 0.17
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 948 419 288 948 420 288 1331 711 288 1942 601
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.8 21.4 21.2 26.8 21.7 18.6 27.0 12.8 12.8 27.5 15.5 12.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.5 0.8 7.4 3.7 0.3 1.1 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.9 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 1.6 1.3 1.5 3.9 0.7 0.5 1.7 1.9 0.4 4.1 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.8 21.9 22.1 34.2 25.4 18.9 28.2 13.5 14.1 28.5 17.4 12.9
LnGrp LOS CCCCCBCBBCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 466 911 763 1471
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.6 26.9 15.2 17.5
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 27.5 9.5 15.5 8.2 26.8 7.2 17.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 7.5 5.4 6.5 3.4 14.9 2.8 12.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.0
HCM 6th LOS C
3.2-2 Item 3B - Page 593
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
3: Frank Sinatra Dr. & Shepherd Ln.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)22 400 718 18 0 70
Future Volume (vph)22 400 718 18 0 70
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)140 50 150 150
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 120 90
Link Speed (mph)50 50 30
Link Distance (ft)5371 693 810
Travel Time (s)73.2 9.5 18.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph)24 440 789 20 0 77
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 440 789 20 0 77
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3.2-3 Item 3B - Page 594
HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
3: Frank Sinatra Dr. & Shepherd Ln.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 400 718 18 0 70
Future Vol, veh/h 22 400 718 18 0 70
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 00555
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 140 - - 50 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 24 440 789 20 0 77
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 814 0 - 0 - 405
Stage 1 ------
Stage 2 ------
Critical Hdwy 4.14 ----6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 ----3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 809 - - - 0 595
Stage 1 - - - - 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 805 ----589
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------
Stage 1 ------
Stage 2 ------
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 12
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)805 - - - 589
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - - - 0.131
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 - - - 12
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.4
3.2-4 Item 3B - Page 595
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
4: Portola Av. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)17 268 115 130 597 18 119 362 65 33 330 20
Future Volume (vph)17 268 115 130 597 18 119 362 65 33 330 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)120 230 140 100 260 50 180 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft)120 90 120 190
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 55 55
Link Distance (ft)693 4512 510 1159
Travel Time (s)9.5 61.5 6.3 14.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Adj. Flow (vph)19 305 131 148 678 20 135 411 74 38 375 23
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 305 131 148 678 20 135 411 74 38 398 0
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Detector Phase 74438852216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0
Total Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 10.2 20.7 20.7 9.8 20.2 20.2 9.6 20.0
Total Split (%)15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 17.0% 34.5% 34.5% 16.3% 33.7% 33.7% 16.0% 33.3%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Portola Av. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
3.2-5 Item 3B - Page 596
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
4: Portola Av. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 268 115 130 597 18 119 362 65 33 330 20
Future Volume (veh/h) 17 268 115 130 597 18 119 362 65 33 330 20
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 19 305 131 148 678 20 135 411 74 38 375 23
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 40 596 263 169 853 378 157 2118 655 70 1799 109
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.41 0.41 0.04 0.37 0.37
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1571 1781 3554 1575 1781 5106 1579 1781 4921 299
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 19 305 131 148 678 20 135 411 74 38 258 140
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1571 1781 1777 1575 1781 1702 1579 1781 1702 1815
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 4.7 4.5 4.9 10.8 0.6 4.5 3.1 1.7 1.3 3.1 3.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 4.7 4.5 4.9 10.8 0.6 4.5 3.1 1.7 1.3 3.1 3.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 40 596 263 169 853 378 157 2118 655 70 1245 664
V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.51 0.50 0.87 0.79 0.05 0.86 0.19 0.11 0.55 0.21 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 148 948 419 169 989 438 157 2118 655 151 1245 664
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.0 22.7 22.7 26.8 21.4 17.5 27.0 11.2 10.8 28.3 13.1 13.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.3 0.7 1.5 33.6 3.6 0.1 34.8 0.2 0.3 6.5 0.4 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 1.7 1.5 3.4 4.1 0.2 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.3 23.4 24.1 60.4 25.0 17.6 61.8 11.4 11.1 34.8 13.4 13.8
LnGrp LOS D C C E C BEBBCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 455 846 620 436
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.2 31.0 22.3 15.4
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 28.9 10.2 14.1 9.8 25.9 5.9 18.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.1 16.2 5.7 16.0 5.3 16.0 5.0 16.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 5.1 6.9 6.7 6.5 5.2 2.6 12.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.5
HCM 6th LOS C
3.2-6 Item 3B - Page 597
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
5: Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 154 115 118 57 233 47 100 570 49 41 1046 385
Future Volume (vph) 154 115 118 57 233 47 100 570 49 41 1046 385
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)140 135 135 260 140 0 210 220
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 1
Taper Length (ft)210 110 110 140
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 55 55
Link Distance (ft)4512 1444 671 1610
Travel Time (s)61.5 19.7 8.3 20.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph)169 126 130 63 256 52 110 626 54 45 1149 423
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 169 126 130 63 256 52 110 680 0 45 1149 423
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 6
Detector Phase 74438852 166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 21.0 9.5 21.0 21.0
Total Split (%)15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 15.8% 35.0% 15.8% 35.0% 35.0%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s)1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
3.2-7 Item 3B - Page 598
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
5: Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 154 115 118 57 233 47 100 570 49 41 1046 385
Future Volume (veh/h) 154 115 118 57 233 47 100 570 49 41 1046 385
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 169 126 130 63 256 52 110 626 54 45 1149 423
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 271 550 243 187 464 205 242 1535 132 152 2235 691
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.09 0.88 0.88
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1570 3456 3554 1567 3456 3310 285 3456 5106 1580
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 169 126 130 63 256 52 110 336 344 45 1149 423
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1570 1728 1777 1567 1728 1777 1818 1728 1702 1580
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 1.9 4.6 1.1 4.0 1.8 1.8 7.5 7.5 0.7 3.1 4.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 1.9 4.6 1.1 4.0 1.8 1.8 7.5 7.5 0.7 3.1 4.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 271 550 243 187 464 205 242 824 843 152 2235 691
V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.23 0.54 0.34 0.55 0.25 0.45 0.41 0.41 0.30 0.51 0.61
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 948 419 288 948 418 288 824 843 288 2235 691
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.94
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.8 22.2 23.4 27.3 24.4 23.5 26.8 10.6 10.6 26.5 2.3 2.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 0.2 1.7 1.1 1.0 0.6 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.8 3.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.7 1.6 0.4 1.5 0.6 0.7 2.4 2.4 0.3 0.6 1.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.3 22.4 25.1 28.4 25.5 24.1 28.1 12.1 12.1 27.5 3.1 6.1
LnGrp LOS CCCCCCCBBCAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 425 371 790 1617
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.4 25.8 14.3 4.6
Approach LOS C C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.1 31.8 7.8 13.3 8.7 30.3 9.2 11.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 9.5 3.1 6.6 3.8 6.3 4.8 6.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 6.1 0.0 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.3
HCM 6th LOS B
3.2-8 Item 3B - Page 599
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
6: Portola Av. & Retreat Circ. (N)
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 9 537 4 3 572
Future Volume (vph)0 9 537 4 3 572
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)150 150 150 150
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft)90 90
Link Speed (mph)30 55 55
Link Distance (ft)217 282 254
Travel Time (s)4.9 3.5 3.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Adj. Flow (vph)0 11 639 5 4 681
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 11 639 5 4 681
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3.2-9 Item 3B - Page 600
HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
6: Portola Av. & Retreat Circ. (N)
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 9 537 4 3 572
Future Vol, veh/h 0 9 537 4 3 572
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 50550
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - 150 150 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 11 639 5 4 681
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 330 0 0 649 0
Stage 1 ------
Stage 2 ------
Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - 5.34 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 - - 3.12 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 568 - - 576 -
Stage 1 0 -----
Stage 2 0 -----
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 563 - - 573 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------
Stage 1 ------
Stage 2 ------
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 0 0.1
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)- - 563 573 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.019 0.006 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.5 11.3 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
3.2-10 Item 3B - Page 601
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
7: Portola Av. & Retreat Circ. (S)
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 1 540 1 0 572
Future Volume (vph)0 1 540 1 0 572
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)150 150 150 150
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft)90 90
Link Speed (mph)30 55 55
Link Distance (ft)243 194 417
Travel Time (s)5.5 2.4 5.2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph)0 1 628 1 0 665
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1 629 0 0 665
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3.2-11 Item 3B - Page 602
HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
7: Portola Av. & Retreat Circ. (S)
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 540 1 0 572
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 540 1 0 572
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 50550
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length ------
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 1 628 1 0 665
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 325 0 0 - -
Stage 1 ------
Stage 2 ------
Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ----
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 572 - - 0 -
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 567 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------
Stage 1 ------
Stage 2 ------
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.4 0 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT
Capacity (veh/h)- - 567 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.002 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.4 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 -
3.2-12 Item 3B - Page 603
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
8: Portola Av. & Willow Ridge
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)31 20 516 28 33 550
Future Volume (vph)31 20 516 28 33 550
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)0 50 150 100
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft)90 60
Link Speed (mph)30 55 55
Link Distance (ft)309 2578 801
Travel Time (s)7.0 32.0 9.9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph)36 23 600 33 38 640
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 23 600 33 38 640
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3.2-13 Item 3B - Page 604
HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
8: Portola Av. & Willow Ridge
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 20 516 28 33 550
Future Vol, veh/h 31 20 516 28 33 550
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 50550
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 50 - 150 100 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 36 23 600 33 38 640
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1006 310 0 0 638 0
Stage 1 605 -----
Stage 2 401 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 238 686 - - 942 -
Stage 1 508 -----
Stage 2 645 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 226 679 - - 938 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 355 -----
Stage 1 505 -----
Stage 2 615 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14 0 0.5
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)- - 355 679 938 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.102 0.034 0.041 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 16.3 10.5 9 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 0.1 -
3.2-14 Item 3B - Page 605
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
9: Portola Av. & Country Club Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)40 358 151 160 685 82 198 407 134 65 417 40
Future Volume (vph)40 358 151 160 685 82 198 407 134 65 417 40
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)200 105 180 80 160 135 200 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft)120 90 100 60
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 55 55
Link Distance (ft)1030 784 945 2578
Travel Time (s)14.0 10.7 11.7 32.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph)47 421 178 188 806 96 233 479 158 76 491 47
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 47 421 178 188 806 96 233 479 158 76 491 47
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4826
Detector Phase 744388522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s)14.0 29.0 29.0 27.0 42.0 42.0 32.0 47.0 47.0 17.0 32.0 32.0
Total Split (%)11.7% 24.2% 24.2% 22.5% 35.0% 35.0% 26.7% 39.2% 39.2% 14.2% 26.7% 26.7%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 9: Portola Av. & Country Club Dr.
3.2-15 Item 3B - Page 606
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
9: Portola Av. & Country Club Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 358 151 160 685 82 198 407 134 65 417 40
Future Volume (veh/h) 40 358 151 160 685 82 198 407 134 65 417 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 47 421 178 188 806 96 233 479 158 76 491 47
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 61 624 276 218 937 416 264 1798 800 97 1465 651
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.41 0.41
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1572 1781 3554 1576 1781 3554 1580 1781 3554 1579
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 421 178 188 806 96 233 479 158 76 491 47
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1572 1781 1777 1576 1781 1777 1580 1781 1777 1579
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.1 13.3 12.6 12.4 25.9 5.7 15.4 9.2 6.6 5.1 11.3 2.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.1 13.3 12.6 12.4 25.9 5.7 15.4 9.2 6.6 5.1 11.3 2.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 61 624 276 218 937 416 264 1798 800 97 1465 651
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.68 0.65 0.86 0.86 0.23 0.88 0.27 0.20 0.78 0.34 0.07
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 141 740 327 334 1125 499 408 1798 800 186 1465 651
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.5 46.3 46.0 51.7 42.1 34.6 50.1 16.9 16.3 56.0 24.1 21.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.7 1.9 3.3 13.4 6.0 0.3 13.3 0.4 0.6 12.7 0.6 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 5.8 5.0 6.2 11.6 2.2 7.5 3.5 2.3 2.5 4.6 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.2 48.2 49.3 65.1 48.0 34.9 63.4 17.3 16.8 68.7 24.7 21.6
LnGrp LOS E D D E D C EBBECC
Approach Vol, veh/h 646 1090 870 614
Approach Delay, s/veh 50.5 49.8 29.5 29.9
Approach LOS DDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 64.7 19.2 25.1 22.3 53.5 8.6 35.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 43.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 28.0 9.5 38.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.1 11.2 14.4 15.3 17.4 13.3 5.1 27.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.4 0.3 2.1 0.4 2.5 0.0 3.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.7
HCM 6th LOS D
3.2-16 Item 3B - Page 607
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
11: Cook St. & University Park Dr./Berger Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)31 0 17 3 1 10 10 751 10 47 1452 15
Future Volume (vph)31 0 17 3 1 10 10 751 10 47 1452 15
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)180 180 100 0 140 140 225 295
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 0
Taper Length (ft)90 0 160 165
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)30 30 55 55
Link Distance (ft)449 460 1610 602
Travel Time (s)10.2 10.5 20.0 7.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)34 0 19 3 1 11 11 834 11 52 1613 17
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 0 19 3 1 11 11 834 11 52 1613 17
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4826
Detector Phase 744388522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 21.0 21.0 9.5 21.0 21.0
Total Split (%)15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 15.8% 35.0% 35.0% 15.8% 35.0% 35.0%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 11: Cook St. & University Park Dr./Berger Dr.
3.2-17 Item 3B - Page 608
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
11: Cook St. & University Park Dr./Berger Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 0 17 3 1 10 10 751 10 47 1452 15
Future Volume (veh/h) 31 0 17 3 1 10 10 751 10 47 1452 15
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 34 0 19 3 1 0 11 834 0 52 1613 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 64 137 114 7 77 25 3018 167 3194 987
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 0.05 0.63 0.63
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1553 1781 1870 1585 1781 5106 1585 3456 5106 1579
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 34 0 19 3 1 0 11 834 0 52 1613 17
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1553 1781 1870 1585 1781 1702 1585 1728 1702 1579
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 10.4 0.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 10.4 0.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 64 137 114 7 77 25 3018 167 3194 987
V/C Ratio(X)0.53 0.00 0.17 0.41 0.01 0.44 0.28 0.31 0.51 0.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 148 499 414 148 499 148 3018 288 3194 987
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.4 0.0 26.1 29.8 27.6 0.0 28.9 0.0 0.0 27.6 6.2 4.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.6 0.0 0.7 33.7 0.1 0.0 10.9 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.0 0.0 26.8 63.5 27.7 0.0 39.9 0.2 0.0 28.6 6.7 4.3
LnGrp LOS D A C E C D A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 53 4 A 845 A 1682
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.1 54.5 0.7 7.4
Approach LOS C D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.4 39.5 4.7 8.4 5.3 41.5 6.7 6.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 2.0 2.1 2.7 2.4 12.4 3.1 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.8
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
3.2-18 Item 3B - Page 609
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
1: Monterey Av. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 121 566 124 140 349 68 117 1219 126 89 990 61
Future Volume (vph) 121 566 124 140 349 68 117 1219 126 89 990 61
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)160 150 140 140 250 150 200 175
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 1
Taper Length (ft)100 120 120 120
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 55 55
Link Distance (ft)1182 5371 1281 1753
Travel Time (s)16.1 73.2 15.9 21.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)127 596 131 147 367 72 123 1283 133 94 1042 64
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 596 131 147 367 72 123 1416 0 94 1042 64
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 6
Detector Phase 74438852 166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 21.0 9.5 21.0 21.0
Total Split (%)15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 15.8% 35.0% 15.8% 35.0% 35.0%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s)1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Monterey Av. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
3.2-19 Item 3B - Page 610
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
1: Monterey Av. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 121 566 124 140 349 68 117 1219 126 89 990 61
Future Volume (veh/h) 121 566 124 140 349 68 117 1219 126 89 990 61
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 127 596 131 147 367 72 123 1283 133 94 1042 64
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 253 789 349 263 799 354 251 1657 172 228 1767 546
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.07 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1574 3456 3554 1574 3456 4697 487 3456 5106 1578
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 127 596 131 147 367 72 123 930 486 94 1042 64
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1574 1728 1777 1574 1728 1702 1780 1728 1702 1578
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 9.4 4.2 2.5 5.4 2.2 2.1 14.6 14.6 1.6 10.1 1.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 9.4 4.2 2.5 5.4 2.2 2.1 14.6 14.6 1.6 10.1 1.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 253 789 349 263 799 354 251 1200 628 228 1767 546
V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.76 0.37 0.56 0.46 0.20 0.49 0.77 0.77 0.41 0.59 0.12
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 948 420 288 948 420 288 1200 628 288 1767 546
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.7 21.8 19.8 26.7 20.1 18.9 26.8 17.3 17.3 26.9 16.1 13.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 2.9 0.7 2.0 0.4 0.3 1.5 4.9 9.0 1.2 1.5 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 3.6 1.4 1.0 1.9 0.7 0.8 5.2 6.1 0.6 3.2 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.3 24.7 20.5 28.7 20.5 19.2 28.2 22.2 26.3 28.1 17.6 13.8
LnGrp LOS CCCCCBCCCCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 854 586 1539 1200
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.6 22.4 24.0 18.2
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 25.2 9.1 17.3 8.9 24.8 8.9 17.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 16.6 4.5 11.4 4.1 12.1 4.1 7.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.2
HCM 6th LOS C
3.2-20 Item 3B - Page 611
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
3: Frank Sinatra Dr. & Shepherd Ln.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)40 667 484 41 0 45
Future Volume (vph)40 667 484 41 0 45
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)140 50 150 150
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 120 90
Link Speed (mph)50 50 30
Link Distance (ft)5371 693 810
Travel Time (s)73.2 9.5 18.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)43 725 526 45 0 49
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 725 526 45 0 49
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3.2-21 Item 3B - Page 612
HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
3: Frank Sinatra Dr. & Shepherd Ln.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 667 484 41 0 45
Future Vol, veh/h 40 667 484 41 0 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 00555
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 140 - - 50 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 43 725 526 45 0 49
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 576 0 - 0 - 273
Stage 1 ------
Stage 2 ------
Critical Hdwy 4.14 ----6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 ----3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 993 - - - 0 725
Stage 1 - - - - 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 988 ----718
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------
Stage 1 ------
Stage 2 ------
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 10.4
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)988 - - - 718
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 - - - 0.068
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - - - 10.4
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.2
3.2-22 Item 3B - Page 613
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
4: Portola Av. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)12 573 82 90 354 13 143 415 100 67 280 28
Future Volume (vph)12 573 82 90 354 13 143 415 100 67 280 28
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)120 230 140 100 260 50 180 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft)120 90 120 190
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 55 55
Link Distance (ft)693 4512 510 1159
Travel Time (s)9.5 61.5 6.3 14.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph)13 610 87 96 377 14 152 441 106 71 298 30
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 610 87 96 377 14 152 441 106 71 328 0
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Detector Phase 74438852216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0
Total Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 10.4 20.9 20.9 9.6 20.1
Total Split (%)15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 17.3% 34.8% 34.8% 16.0% 33.5%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Portola Av. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
3.2-23 Item 3B - Page 614
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
4: Portola Av. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 12 573 82 90 354 13 143 415 100 67 280 28
Future Volume (veh/h) 12 573 82 90 354 13 143 415 100 67 280 28
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 13 610 87 96 377 14 152 441 106 71 298 30
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 29 796 353 123 983 436 175 1868 578 103 1536 152
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.37 0.37 0.06 0.33 0.33
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1574 1781 3554 1576 1781 5106 1579 1781 4722 466
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 13 610 87 96 377 14 152 441 106 71 213 115
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1574 1781 1777 1576 1781 1702 1579 1781 1702 1784
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 9.6 2.7 3.2 5.2 0.4 5.0 3.6 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 9.6 2.7 3.2 5.2 0.4 5.0 3.6 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 29 796 353 123 983 436 175 1868 578 103 1108 580
V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.77 0.25 0.78 0.38 0.03 0.87 0.24 0.18 0.69 0.19 0.20
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 148 948 420 148 983 436 175 1868 578 151 1108 580
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.2 21.8 19.1 27.5 17.6 15.8 26.7 13.2 12.9 27.7 14.6 14.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.5 3.2 0.4 18.9 0.2 0.0 34.0 0.3 0.7 7.9 0.4 0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 3.7 0.9 1.8 1.8 0.1 3.5 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.8 25.0 19.5 46.4 17.8 15.9 60.7 13.5 13.6 35.7 15.0 15.4
LnGrp LOS D C B D BBEBBDBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 710 487 699 399
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.6 23.4 23.8 18.8
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.0 26.0 8.6 17.4 10.4 23.5 5.5 20.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.1 16.9 5.0 16.0 5.9 16.1 5.0 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 5.6 5.2 11.6 7.0 4.8 2.4 7.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.1
HCM 6th LOS C
3.2-24 Item 3B - Page 615
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
5: Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 332 257 136 42 163 39 119 882 74 75 755 183
Future Volume (vph) 332 257 136 42 163 39 119 882 74 75 755 183
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)140 135 135 260 140 0 210 220
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 1
Taper Length (ft)210 110 110 140
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 55 55
Link Distance (ft)4512 1444 671 1610
Travel Time (s)61.5 19.7 8.3 20.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)361 279 148 46 177 42 129 959 80 82 821 199
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 361 279 148 46 177 42 129 1039 0 82 821 199
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 6
Detector Phase 74438852 166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s)10.0 20.5 20.5 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.5 9.5 20.5 20.5
Total Split (%)16.7% 34.2% 34.2% 15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 15.8% 34.2% 15.8% 34.2% 34.2%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s)1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
3.2-25 Item 3B - Page 616
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
5: Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 332 257 136 42 163 39 119 882 74 75 755 183
Future Volume (veh/h) 332 257 136 42 163 39 119 882 74 75 755 183
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 361 279 148 46 177 42 129 959 80 82 821 199
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 317 548 242 154 381 168 254 1513 126 215 2268 702
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.12 0.89 0.89
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1570 3456 3554 1563 3456 3319 277 3456 5106 1580
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 361 279 148 46 177 42 129 513 526 82 821 199
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1570 1728 1777 1563 1728 1777 1819 1728 1702 1580
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 4.3 5.3 0.8 2.8 1.5 2.2 13.3 13.3 1.3 1.6 1.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 4.3 5.3 0.8 2.8 1.5 2.2 13.3 13.3 1.3 1.6 1.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 317 548 242 154 381 168 254 810 829 215 2268 702
V/C Ratio(X) 1.14 0.51 0.61 0.30 0.46 0.25 0.51 0.63 0.63 0.38 0.36 0.28
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 317 977 432 288 948 417 288 810 829 288 2268 702
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.76 0.76 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.2 23.3 23.7 27.8 25.2 24.6 26.7 12.5 12.5 25.2 2.0 1.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 88.0 0.6 1.9 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.6 3.8 3.7 1.1 0.4 1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.8 1.6 1.8 0.3 1.1 0.5 0.8 4.5 4.6 0.5 0.4 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 115.2 23.8 25.6 28.8 26.0 25.3 28.3 16.3 16.2 26.3 2.4 2.9
LnGrp LOS F CCCCCCBBCAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 788 265 1168 1102
Approach Delay, s/veh 66.0 26.4 17.6 4.3
Approach LOS E C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 31.3 7.2 13.3 8.9 30.6 10.0 10.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 16.5 5.0 16.5 5.0 16.5 5.5 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 15.3 2.8 7.3 4.2 3.6 7.5 4.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.4
HCM 6th LOS C
3.2-26 Item 3B - Page 617
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
6: Portola Av. & Retreat Circ. (N)
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 14 644 5 4 448
Future Volume (vph)0 14 644 5 4 448
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)150 150 150 150
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft)90 90
Link Speed (mph)30 55 55
Link Distance (ft)217 282 254
Travel Time (s)4.9 3.5 3.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)0 15 692 5 4 482
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 15 692 5 4 482
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3.2-27 Item 3B - Page 618
HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
6: Portola Av. & Retreat Circ. (N)
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 14 644 5 4 448
Future Vol, veh/h 0 14 644 5 4 448
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 50550
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - 150 150 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 15 692 5 4 482
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 356 0 0 702 0
Stage 1 ------
Stage 2 ------
Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - 5.34 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 - - 3.12 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 547 - - 544 -
Stage 1 0 -----
Stage 2 0 -----
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 542 - - 541 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------
Stage 1 ------
Stage 2 ------
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 0 0.1
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)- - 542 541 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.028 0.008 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.8 11.7 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
3.2-28 Item 3B - Page 619
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
7: Portola Av. & Retreat Circ. (S)
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 1 648 1 0 448
Future Volume (vph)0 1 648 1 0 448
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)150 150 150 150
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft)90 90
Link Speed (mph)30 55 55
Link Distance (ft)243 194 417
Travel Time (s)5.5 2.4 5.2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)0 1 704 1 0 487
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1 705 0 0 487
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3.2-29 Item 3B - Page 620
HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
7: Portola Av. & Retreat Circ. (S)
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 648 1 0 448
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 648 1 0 448
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 50550
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length ------
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 1 704 1 0 487
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 363 0 0 - -
Stage 1 ------
Stage 2 ------
Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ----
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 541 - - 0 -
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 536 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------
Stage 1 ------
Stage 2 ------
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 0 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT
Capacity (veh/h)- - 536 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.002 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.7 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 -
3.2-30 Item 3B - Page 621
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
8: Portola Av. & Willow Ridge
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)45 27 628 40 30 418
Future Volume (vph)45 27 628 40 30 418
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)0 50 150 100
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft)90 60
Link Speed (mph)30 55 55
Link Distance (ft)309 2578 801
Travel Time (s)7.0 32.0 9.9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)48 29 675 43 32 449
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 29 675 43 32 449
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3.2-31 Item 3B - Page 622
HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
8: Portola Av. & Willow Ridge
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 45 27 628 40 30 418
Future Vol, veh/h 45 27 628 40 30 418
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 50550
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 50 - 150 100 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 48 29 675 43 32 449
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 974 348 0 0 723 0
Stage 1 680 -----
Stage 2 294 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 249 648 - - 875 -
Stage 1 465 -----
Stage 2 730 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 237 642 - - 871 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 355 -----
Stage 1 463 -----
Stage 2 699 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.5 0 0.6
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)- - 355 642 871 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.136 0.045 0.037 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 16.7 10.9 9.3 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0.1 0.1 -
3.2-32 Item 3B - Page 623
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
9: Portola Av. & Country Club Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)36 741 168 177 531 121 163 445 170 72 377 50
Future Volume (vph)36 741 168 177 531 121 163 445 170 72 377 50
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)200 105 180 80 160 135 200 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft)120 90 100 60
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 55 55
Link Distance (ft)1030 784 945 2578
Travel Time (s)14.0 10.7 11.7 32.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)37 764 173 182 547 125 168 459 175 74 389 52
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 764 173 182 547 125 168 459 175 74 389 52
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4826
Detector Phase 744388522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s)11.3 41.0 41.0 27.0 56.7 56.7 26.0 36.9 36.9 15.1 26.0 26.0
Total Split (%)9.4% 34.2% 34.2% 22.5% 47.3% 47.3% 21.7% 30.8% 30.8% 12.6% 21.7% 21.7%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 9: Portola Av. & Country Club Dr.
3.2-33 Item 3B - Page 624
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
9: Portola Av. & Country Club Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 741 168 177 531 121 163 445 170 72 377 50
Future Volume (veh/h) 36 741 168 177 531 121 163 445 170 72 377 50
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 764 173 182 547 125 168 459 175 74 389 52
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 53 899 399 212 1217 541 198 1539 684 95 1334 593
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.05 0.38 0.38
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1576 1781 3554 1578 1781 3554 1580 1781 3554 1579
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 764 173 182 547 125 168 459 175 74 389 52
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1576 1781 1777 1578 1781 1777 1580 1781 1777 1579
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 24.5 11.1 12.0 14.4 6.8 11.1 10.1 8.5 4.9 9.2 2.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 24.5 11.1 12.0 14.4 6.8 11.1 10.1 8.5 4.9 9.2 2.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 53 899 399 212 1217 541 198 1539 684 95 1334 593
V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.85 0.43 0.86 0.45 0.23 0.85 0.30 0.26 0.78 0.29 0.09
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 1096 486 334 1561 693 319 1539 684 157 1334 593
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.7 42.6 37.6 51.9 30.7 28.2 52.4 22.1 21.7 56.1 26.3 24.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.7 5.5 0.7 12.4 0.3 0.2 11.4 0.5 0.9 13.1 0.6 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 11.0 4.2 5.9 5.9 2.5 5.4 4.0 3.1 2.5 3.8 1.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.4 48.1 38.3 64.2 30.9 28.4 63.8 22.6 22.6 69.2 26.8 24.5
LnGrp LOS E D D E C C E C C E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 974 854 802 515
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.4 37.6 31.2 32.7
Approach LOS DDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.9 56.0 18.8 34.4 17.8 49.0 8.0 45.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.6 32.9 22.5 37.0 21.5 22.0 6.8 52.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 12.1 14.0 26.5 13.1 11.2 4.5 16.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.3 3.8 0.2 1.7 0.0 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.2
HCM 6th LOS D
3.2-34 Item 3B - Page 625
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
11: Cook St. & University Park Dr./Berger Dr.
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Residential Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14677\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes NP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)47 4 30 16 6 56 41 1203 9 44 967 41
Future Volume (vph)47 4 30 16 6 56 41 1203 9 44 967 41
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)180 180 100 0 140 140 225 295
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 0
Taper Length (ft)90 0 160 165
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)30 30 55 55
Link Distance (ft)449 460 1610 602
Travel Time (s)10.2 10.5 20.0 7.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph)52 4 33 18 7 62 46 1337 10 49 1074 46
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 4 33 18 7 62 46 1337 10 49 1074 46
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4826
Detector Phase 744388522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s)9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 20.0 20.0 9.5 21.0 21.0 9.5 21.0 21.0
Total Split (%)15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 15.8% 33.3% 33.3% 15.8% 35.0% 35.0% 15.8% 35.0% 35.0%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 11: Cook St. & University Park Dr./Berger Dr.
3.2-35 Item 3B - Page 626