Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Public Hearing 01-29-2004 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development DATE: January 29, 2004 SUBJECT: General Plan Public Hearing Agenda I. OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENTS - 60 minutes II. OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENTS A. Deep Canyon Land Use Issues - 20 minutes B. University Park Land Use - 60 minutes C. Circulation (if time permits) - 40 minutes III. ADJOURN TO FEBRUARY 5 AT 8:30 A.M. Submitted by: Phil Drell Director of Community Development Approval: Approval: 4, omer Croy Carlos L. O a ACM for D elopment Services City Manager /tm (W pd ocs\tm\sr\gpa01-04.cc6) TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR CC Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/1.14.04 f it V64. ` £-• CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: JANUARY 14, 2004 CASE NO. GPA 01-04 REQUEST: COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND CIRCULATION OVERVIEW APPLICANT: CITY I. BACKGROUND All development results in the generation of traffic, and land use and traffic generation are intimately linked. The type, extent, intensity and distribution of land use and development will affect how efficiently traffic is generated and can be managed. Surrounding land uses and the roadway network located outside the city also impact local land use and traffic conditions. In order to address traffic issues, a region-based, City/study area-focused traffic study was also prepared, in conjunction with the preparation of the Draft General Plan I. A wide variety of data were assembled to measure existing traffic conditions on the various roadways studied. A focused version of the CVATS Traffic Model was used to analyse existing conditions and to project future conditions for the Preferred Alternative General Plan, as well as for the current General Plan and two other alternative plans. Levels of Service The capacity of'a segment of roadway or an intersection is typically characterized as "Level- of- Service". As gauged for mid-block travel, Level-of-Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing the character and efficiency of the flow of traffic. For intersections, the LOS is defined quantitatively, as the number of seconds the vehicle is delayed in passing through the intersection. LOS includes a range of alphabetical connotations "A" through "F", used to characterize roadway operating conditions. LOS A represents the best/free-flow conditions and LOS F indicates the worst/system failure. Palm Desert General Plan Update Traffic Study. Prepared by Urban Crossroads,Inc. September 5,2003. 1 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR CC Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/1.14.04 Intersections represent the most constrained portion of the roadway network and are therefore the primary area of focus of analysis. Level of Service at an intersection in terms of seconds of delay or waiting time to get through the various intersection approaches. Mid-block Levels of Service are represented as volume to capacity ratios, or vehicle demand divided by roadway capacity. In general terms, as the ratio approaches 1.00 or maximum capacity, the roadway approaches LOS F. However, it is important to keep in mind that for mid-block, the LOS is meant to define a qualitative rather than a quantitative measure of operation. The LOS assignment is only marginally useful in characterizing capacity, and is not meant to determine actual volumes that a particular roadway segment can carry. Mid-block volumes and volume to capacity ratios (V/C) should be used as a means of monitoring traffic flows toward the intersections and can inform traffic engineers of areas where further analysis is warranted. A variety of conditions and mix of improvements can enhance mid-block roadway capacity. Added travel and turning lanes increase capacity, as do the inclusion of raised medians and restricted access on a roadway. Restricted access and raised medians increase roadway capacity by reducing the number of vehicle conflict points and improving traffic flows. Restricted access avoids loss of capacity caused by interruptions and disruptions to traffic flow resulting from vehicles coming onto or leaving the roadway. Regional and Local Traffic Model As noted in the introduction to this discussion, the Palm Desert General Plan Traffic Model is a pure focused version of the Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study (CVATS) model, providing a more detailed structure of transportation analysis zones and a more detailed roadway network within the planning area boundaries. The CVATS model was developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and is based upon the TRANPLAN software model. CVATS is a large area network model developed for regional transportation planning. It breaks the Valley study area into relatively large zones (see Zone System, below), and uses a generalized land use designation system and trip generation/distribution/assignment procedures. The Palm Desert Traffic Model, however, benefits from the application of extended refinements built largely on the analysis of other General Plans, which extend across much of the Coachella Valley District-Based Productions and Attractions Analysis The identification, characterization and analysis of trip production and attractions, typically referred to as trip purposes, are essential parts of the traffic generation model. For the Palm Desert Traffic Model, 5 separate trip purposes were used. They include: 1) Home Based Work (HBW), 2) Home Based Social/Recreational (HBSR), 3) Home Based Shopping/Personal Business (HBSHPB), 4) Home Based School (HBSCH), and 5)Non Home Based (NHB). A description of the purposes is provided below. A more generalized aggregation of trip purposes traditionally divides trips into Home-Based Work, Home-Based Non-Work, and Non-Home Based. The following discussion follows this convention. 2 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR CC Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/1.14.04 Home-Based Work (HBW) Home-based work trips refer to any trip where either the origin or destination end is at the home of the traveler, and the other end is at the workplace of the traveler. A home-based work trip starts or ends at the residence of the worker, who goes directly to or from the workplace. HBW trips are a significant trip type category because of their relative importance in terms of both number of trips and the characteristics of the trips. Home-based work trips typically comprise almost half of A.M. peak hour trips and approximately 20 percent of all daily trips. In addition, home-based work trips are typically longer than any other commonly used trip purpose, so they contribute more to the overall vehicle miles of travel which occur. Home-Based Non-Work Home-based non-work trips include anything other than HBW trips where one trip-end is at the residence of the traveler. We have separated these trips into three other categories; home-based social/recreational (HBSR), home-based shopping/personal business (HBSHPB), and home-based school (HBSCH). These trips are typically shorter on average than the HBW trips. About 45 percent of the tips made in an urban area on a daily basis fall into these purposes • Home-Based Social/Recreational (HBSR): These trips are those, which start or end at the residence of the traveler and go directly to or from the social or recreational area of interest. This category captures trips related to such activities as dining and entertainment. •Home-Based Shopping/Personal Business (HBSHPB): HBSHPB trips are again trips which start or end at the residence of the traveler and go directly to or from a shopping center or other location where shopping is available. Shopping is defined as the purchase of material goods of one sort or another, and can be anything from groceries to clothing to sporting equipment. HPSHPB also serve as a category for trips of personal business, such as a trip to the post office. •Home-Based School (HBSCH): These trips also start or end at the residence of the traveler and go to or from a school or place of learning. Theses locations may include elementary schools, high schools, colleges and universities, etc. • Non-Home Based (NHB): Every trip that does not have one trip-end at the residence of the traveler is included in this category. Examples of trips that fall into this category include trips from school to work, or from the work place to a shopping center. About 35% of the trips that occur in an urban area on a daily basis are included in this trip purpose category. These trips also tend to be shorter in general then the HBW type trips. Zone and Network System The traffic model divides the planning area into a total of 331 analysis zones, following CVATS zone boundaries, General Plan land use boundaries, digital street centerlines and other GIS data, thereby greatly increasing the detail of the analysis. Traffic volumes have been generated for each TAZ based upon the mix and acreage of each land use in each TAZ, with land uses being factored into the model as either trip "productions" or"attractions". 3 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR CC Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/1.14.04 Trip Generation Vehicle trips generated within each of the 331 analysis zones are based on land use data on existing uses and proposed uses as shown on the General Plan land use maps. The CVAG CVATS model breaks down land uses into 13 variables, ranging from very low density residential to commercial, industrial and institutional uses. A total of 15 land use categories were used in the traffic analysis, including one for public utilities and one for open space lands. The CVAG CVATS model was used to derive the average trip generation rates per the various land uses, and were modified for City-specific application. Daily trip rates and percentages are derived from the CVAG 1995 Origin and Destination Survey data, as well as from trip generation data from the 1997 CVATS model validation. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment The City and planning area have been broken down into analysis zones, the trip generation for each is calculated, and the trip distribution and assignment functions of the City traffic model are applied. This next step involves providing a general directional distribution of these trips and then finally assigning them to specific streets. As mentioned above, trips are either attractions or productions; that is, they are either drawing trips into an analysis zone or are exporting trips. Typically, this distribution of trips is accomplished using a "gravity distribution model", based on the formula that the distribution of trips is proportional to the "attractiveness" of the land use and the distance (or travel time) from the point of trip production. Each type of trip purpose has its own specific travel time distribution function or curve. Traffic is assigned to the roadway network over four distinct time periods, including AM peak, Mid-day, PM peak and Nighttime. Traffic assignment involves the specific route paths of the various trip interchanges between analysis zones identified in the trip distribution process. The end result forecasts of daily traffic volumes yield the aggregate assignment of trips to roadways between and connecting analysis zones throughout the City and study area. Summary of Existing Operating Conditions The following discussion briefly summarizes the existing operating conditions along selected roadway links and intersections. Existing conditions provide an important baseline against which to measure the impacts of the proposed General Plan update (Preferred Alternative) with the other alternatives evaluated in this EIR. Conditions at intersections provide the most meaningful characterization of operation or actual operating level of service of the roadway network. Roadway Links: Existing Conditions As shown Table III-11, above, and in the General Plan Traffic Report, most of the roadway links analysed are operating at LOS C or better, while 10 links are operating at LOS D, 7 are operating at LOS E and 7 roadway links are operating at LOS F. Roadways with links operating at undesirable levels of service include and are largely limited to Monterey Avenue, Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111. Individual links of Country Club Drive, Hovley lane and Deep Canyon are also currently operating at undesirable levels of service. 4 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR CC Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/1.14.04 Intersections: Existing Conditions As shown in Table III-11, above, existing operating conditions at fifty-two (52) intersections were analysed as part of the General Plan Traffic Study. The traffic study identifies five intersections, which are currently operating at LOS E or worse during the AM or PM peak hours. These include the I-10 east- bound ramps at Ramon Road, Fred Waring Drive at Deep Canyon Road, Cook Street at Fred Waring Drive,Hovley lane at Eldorado Drive, and Washington Street at Hovley Lane. An additional three intersections are currently operating at LOS D during either the AM or PM peak hour periods. These include Monterey Avenue at Highway 111, Highway 111 at Deep Canyon Road, and Washington Street at Country Club Drive. All other intersections analysed are currently operating at LOS C or better. See the following tables showing current improvements and levels of service for important roadways and intersections. Those of particular note are in bold. 5 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Table I Existing Daily Volumes/Capacity Summary General Plan Study Area EXISTING ROADWAY ROADWAY SEGMENT FROM TO COUNT CROSS-SECTION CAPACITY V/C LOS Monterey Ave. Varner Rd. I-10 WB Ramps 15,600 6D 52,000 0.30 A Monterey Ave. I-10 WB Ramps I-10 EB Ramps 22,600 6D 52,000 0.43 A Monterey Ave. I-10 EB Ramps Dinah Shore Dr. 32,700 6D 52,000 0.63 B Monterey Ave. Dinah Shore Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. 34,600 4D 32,000 1.08 F Monterey Ave. Gerald Ford Dr. Frank Sinatra Dr. 22,900 4D 32,000 0.72 C Monterey Ave. Frank Sinatra Dr. Country Club Dr. 30,600 4D 32,000 0.96 E Monterey Ave. Country Club Dr. Parkview Dr. 26,300 4D 32,000 0.82 D Monterey Ave. Parkview Dr. Fred Waring Dr. 23,000 6D 52,000 0.44 A Monterey Ave. Fred Waring Dr. SR-111 20,500 6D 52,000 0.39 A Monterey Ave. SR-111 El Paseo 22,800 4D 32,000 0.71 C San Pablo Ave. Magnesia Falls Dr. Fred Waring Dr. 10,000 2U 14,000 0.71 C San Pablo Ave. Fred Waring Dr. SR-111 11,300 4D 32,000 0.35 A Portola Ave. Country Club Dr. Hovley Ln. E. 18,600 4D 32,000 0.58 A Portola Ave. Hovley Ln. E. Magnesia Falls Dr. 20,500 4D 32,000 0.64 B Portola Ave. Magnesia Falls Dr. Fred Waring Dr. 17,400 4D 32,000 0.54 A Portola Ave. Fred Waring Dr. SR-111 19,300 4D 32,000 0.60 A Deep Canyon Rd. Magnesia Falls Dr. Fred Waring Dr. 19,800 2D 16,000 1.24 F Deep Canyon Rd. Fred Waring Dr. SR-111 22,600 3D 24,000 0.94 E Deep Canyon Rd. SR-111 Fairway Dr. 8,300 2U 14,000 0.59 A Cook St. I-10 WB Ramps I-10 EB Ramps 10,700 5D 42,000 0.25 A Cook St. I-10 EB Ramps Gerald Ford Dr. 21,900 5D 42,000 0.52 A Cook St. Gerald Ford Dr. Frank Sinatra Dr. 16,700 4D 32,000 0.52 A Cook St. Frank Sinatra Dr. Country Club Dr. 22,100 4D 32,000 0.69 B Cook St. Country Club Dr. Hovley Ln. E. 27,700 4D 32,000 0.87 D Cook St. Hovley Ln. E. Fred Waring Dr. 25,500 4D 32,000 0.80 C Washington St. Varner Rd. I-10 EB Ramps 23,700 6D 52,000 0.46 A Washington St. I-10 EB Ramps Country Club Dr. 46,200 6D 52,000 0.89 D Washington St. Country Club Dr. Hovley Ln. E. 43,000 6D 52,000 0.83 D Washington St. Hovley Ln. E. Fred Waring Dr. 31,000 6D 52,000 0.60 A 6 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Washington St. Fred Waring Dr. SR-111 27,200 6D 52,000 0.52 A Dillon Rd. Hot Springs Rd. Thousand Palms Canyon Rd. 2,500 2U 14,000 0.18 A Ramon Rd. Bob Hope Dr. I-10 EB Ramps 24,100 4D 32,000 0.75 C Ramon Rd. I-10 EB Ramps I-10 WB Ramps 19,100 4D 32,000 0.60 A Ramon Rd. I-10 WB Ramps Varner Rd. 15,900 4D 32,000 0.50 A Ramon Rd. Monterey Av. Chase School Rd. 6,600 2U 14,000 0.47 A Dinah Shore Dr. Bob Hope Dr. Monterey Av. 20,500 2U 14,000 1.46 F Gerald Ford Dr. Bob Hope Dr. Monterey Av. 15,600 4D 32,000 0.49 A Gerald Ford Dr. Monterey Av. Portola Av. 15,500 4D 32,000 0.48 A Gerald Ford Dr. Portola Av. Cook St. 5,900 2D 16,000 0.37 A Gerald Ford Dr. Cook St. Frank Sinatra Dr. 4,000 2U 14,000 0.29 A Frank Sinatra Dr. Bob Hope Dr. Monterey Av. 13,500 4D 32,000 0.42 A Frank Sinatra Dr. Monterey Av. Portola Av. 11,300 4D 32,000 0.35 A Frank Sinatra Dr. Portola Av. Cook St. 10,300 4D 32,000 0.32 A Frank Sinatra Dr. Cook St. Gerald Ford Dr. 6,000 4D 32,000 0.19 A Frank Sinatra Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. Eldorado Dr. 9,200 4D 32,000 0.29 A Av. 38 Varner Rd. Washington St. 300 4D 32,000 0.01 A Tamarisk Row Dr. Eldorado Dr. Country Club Dr. 6,400 2U 14,000 0.46 A Varner Rd. Monterey Av. Chase School Rd. 4,000 2U 14,000 0.29 A Varner Rd. Chase School Rd. Av. 38 3,500 2U 14,000 0.25 A Varner Rd. I-10 WB On Ramp Washington St. 6,300 4D 32,000 0.20 A Varner Rd. Washington St. I-10 WB Ramps 14,400 7D 62,000 0.23 A I-10 Freeway W/O Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. 83,000 8F 160,500 0.52 A I-10 Freeway Ramon Rd. Monterey Av. 85,000 8F 160,500 0.53 A I-10 Freeway Monterey Av. Cook St. 81,000 6F 117,500 0.69 B I-10 Freeway Cook St. Washington St. 76,000 6F 117,500 0.65 B I-10 Freeway Washington St. E/O Washington St. 64,000 6F 117,500 0.54 A Country Club Dr. Bob Hope Dr. Monterey Av. 28,800 4D 32,000 0.90 D Country Club Dr. Monterey Av. Portola Av. 18,700 4D 32,000 0.58 A Country Club Dr. Portola Av. Cook St. 21,200 4D 32,000 0.66 B Country Club Dr. Cook St. Eldorado Dr. 21,500 4D 32,000 0.67 B Country Club Dr. Eldorado Dr. Oasis Club Dr. 20,200 4D 32,000 0.63 B Country Club Dr. Oasis Club Dr. Washington St. 31,700 4D 32,000 0.99 E Country Club Dr. Washington St. Av. 42 19,300 4D 32,000 0.60 A Hovley Ln. E. Portola Av. Cook St. 14,200 4D 32,000 0.44 A 7 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Hovley Ln. E. Cook St. Eldorado Dr. 13,600 2D 16,000 0.85 D Hovley Ln. E. Eldorado Dr. Oasis Club Dr. 12,800 4D 32,000 0.40 A Hovley Ln. E. Oasis Club Dr. Washington St. 14,500 4D 32,000 0.45 A Av. 42 Washington St. Adams St. 23,100 4D 32,000 0.72 C Magnesia Falls Dr. Monterey Av. Portola Av. 800 2D 16,000 0.05 A Magnesia Falls Dr. Portola Av. Deep Canyon Rd. 3,400 2D 16,000 0.21 A Painters Path Fred Waring Dr. SR-111 2,800 2D 16,000 0.18 A Parkview Dr. SR-111 Monterey Av. 5,100 2U 14,000 0.36 A Parkview Dr. Monterey Av. College of the Desert 8,400 2U 14,000 0.60 A Fred Waring Dr. SR-111 Monterey Av. 15,700 4D 32,000 0.49 A Fred Waring Dr. Monterey Av. College of the Desert 28,900 4D 32,000 0.90 D Fred Waring Dr. College of the Desert San Pablo Av. 28,400 4D 32,000 0.89 D Fred Waring Dr. San Pablo Av. Portola Av. 38,300 4D 32,000 1.20 F Fred Waring Dr. Portola Av. Deep Canyon Rd. 38,900 4D 32,000 1.22 F Fred Waring Dr. Deep Canyon Rd. Cook St. 47,600 4D 32,000 1.49 F Fred Waring Dr. California Rd. Washington St. 22,900 4D 32,000 0.72 C Fred Waring Dr. Cook St. California Dr. 21,700 4D 32,000 0.68 B Fred Waring Dr. Washington St. Jefferson St. 19,900 3D 24,000 0.83 D SR-111 Bob Hope Dr. Parkview Dr. 42,100 6D 52,000 0.81 D SR-111 Parkview Dr. Fred Waring Dr. 36,700 6D 52,000 0.71 C SR-111 Fred Waring Dr. Desert Crossing 32,700 6D 52,000 0.63 B SR-111 Desert Crossing El Paseo/Town Center Wy. 34,500 6D 52,000 0.66 B SR-111 El Paseo/Town Center Wy. Plaza Wy. 23,700 6D 52,000 0.46 A SR-111 Plaza Wy. Monterey Av. 28,400 6D 52,000 0.55 A SR-111 Monterey Av. San Pablo Av. 30,000 4D 32,000 0.94 E SR-111 San Pablo Av. San Luis Rey Av. 27,900 6D 52,000 0.54 A SR-111 San Luis Rey Av. Portola Av. 32,900 6D 52,000 0.63 B SR-111 Portola Av. El Paseo/Cabrillo Av. 32,000 6D 52,000 0.62 B SR-111 El Paseo/Cabrillo Av. Deep Canyon Rd. 40,800 6D 52,000 0.78 C SR-111 Deep Canyon Rd. Hospitality Dr. 30,400 4D 32,000 0.95 E SR-111 Hospitality Dr. Cook St. 30,500 4D 32,000 0.95 E SR-111 Cook St. Eldorado Dr. 31,800 4D 32,000 0.99 E SR-111 Eldorado Dr. Miles Av. 35,000 4D 32,000 1.09 F Mesa View Dr. SR-74 Portola Av. 3,500 2D 16,000 0.22 A 8 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Table II Peak Hour Intersection Operations Analysis Existing Conditions (2002) INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES2 LEVEL NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAYS OF TRAFFIC' BOUND BOUND BOUND, BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE INTERSECTIONS CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM I-10 WB Ramps (NS) at: •Ramon Rd. (EW) AWS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 10 0 1 1>> 40.9 -° E F I-10 EB Ramps (NS)at: •Ramon Rd. (EW) TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 1 1>> 1 1 0 17.4 24.0 B C Park View Dr./Painters Path(NS) at: •SR-111 (EW) TS 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 3 0 1 3 1 22.6 28.7 C C SR-111 (NS) at: •Fred Waring Dr. (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 0 2 3 0 31.0 34.5 C C Desert Crossing (NS) at: •SR-111(EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 3 1 2 3 0 29.5 32.9 C5 C5 El Paseo/Town Center Way(NS) at: •SR-111 (EW) TS 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 30.7 32.8 C C5 Plaza Way(NS) at: •SR-111 (EW) TS 1 1 1 1 0.5 1.5 2 3 0 1 3 1 18.6 30.2 B C Monterey Av. (NS) at: •I-10 WB Ramps(EW) TS 2 2 0 0 3 1>> 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 23.4 21.7 C C •I-10 EB Ramps(EW) TS 0 3 1 2 2 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 16.0 33.0 B C •Dinah Shore Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 0 1 3 1>> 2 2 0 1 2 0 16.1 17.3 B B •Gerald Ford Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 25.8 33.0 CC •Frank Sinatra Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 22.3 23.3 C C •Country Club Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 27.9 34.0 C C •Park View Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 20.7 34.6 CC •Fred Waring Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 23.9 32.8 C C •SR-111 (EW) TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 25.6 44.7 C D 9 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 College of the Desert(NS) at: •Fred Waring Dr. (EW) TS 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 17.6 23.6 B C San Pablo Av. (NS) at: •Fred Waring Dr. (EW) TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 24.9 26.8 C C •SR-111 (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 1>> 2 3 1 2 3 0 26.6 27.2 C C San Luis Rey(NS) at: •SR-111 (EW) TS 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 22.5 22.6 C C Portola Av. (NS)at: •Gerald Ford Dr. (EW) AWS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 11.6 12.3 B B •Frank Sinatra Dr. (EW) AWS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 14.4 17.6 B C •Country Club Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 25.7 33.9 C C •Hovley Ln. E. (EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 20.7 18.3 C B •Magnesia Falls Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 25.9 27.6 CC •Fred Waring Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 0 27.4 32.8 C C •SR-111 (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 26.5 31.3 C C El Paseo/Cabrillo Av. (NS)at: •SR-111 (EW) TS 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 23.3 26.2 C C Deep Canyon Rd. (NS)at: •Fred Waring Dr. (EW) TS 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 -4 - 4 Fs F5 •SR-111 (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 3 1 26.5 40.0 C5 D5 Hospitality Dr. (NS) at: •SR-111 (EW) TS 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 20.0 20.5 B C Cook St. (NS) at: •I-10 WB Ramps(EW) TS 0 2 1>> 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8.5 10.2 A B •I-10 EB Ramps (EW) TS 0 3 0 1 3 0 1.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 21.6 21.1 C C •Gerald Ford Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 25.0 24.0 C C •Frank Sinatra Dr. (EW) TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 32.6 34.1 C C •Country Club Dr. (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 32.6 27.8 C C •Hovley Ln. E. (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 27.5 32.1 CC •Fred Waring Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 --4 56.1 F E •SR-111 (EW) TS 1 2 0 1.5 1.5 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 33.0 33.2 C C5 Gerald Ford Dr. (NS) at: •Frank Sinatra Dr. (EW) CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 11.6 12.4 BB 10 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Oasis Club Dr. (NS)at: •Country Club Dr. (EW) TS 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 18.7 16.8 B B •Hovley Ln. E. (EW) AWS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 12.7 14.2 BB Eldorado Dr. (NS)at: •Country Club Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 23.6 24.3 C C •Frank Sinatra Dr. (EW) AWS 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.3 10.2 B B •Hovley Ln.E. (EW) AWS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 16.1 -4 C F •SR-111 (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 23.3 24.6 C C Washington St. (NS)at: •Varner Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 1.5 1.5 35.0 26.3 C C •I-10 EB Ramps(EW) TS 0 3 1 2 3 0 1.5 0.5 2 0 0 0 15.1 15.7 B B •Country Club Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 33.7 49.1 C D •Hovley Ln.E. (EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 44.5 69.6 D E •Fred Waring Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 24.5 26.2 C C Varner Rd. (NS) at: •I-10 WB Ramps(EW) TS 2 2 0 0 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 16.6 16.9 B B ' TS -Traffic Signal; AWS -All Way Stop; CSS -Cross Street Stop. 2 When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L=Left; T=Through; R=Right; >=Right Turn Overlap; >>=Free Right Turn 3 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7.5 R1 (2001). 4--=Delay High,Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "F". 'Pedestrians assumed not to occur on every cycle. 11 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR • Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Summary of Project Impacts Analysis To allow a focused analysis of the geographically distinct portions of the General Plan study area, three separate analysis districts were established. Analysis was also conducted on an aggregated basis for the entire General Plan study area. The district analysis allows a comparison of the trip production and attraction components in the study area. These are defined as follows: North District: study area located north of US Intersate-10 and extending to the north study area boundary. South District: study area located south of Frank Sinatra Drive and extending to the south end study area boundary. Mid District: study area located south of US Intersate-10 and north of Frank Sinatra Drive. The General Plan also refers to this district as the University Park planning area. Buildout of the proposed project (Preferred Alternative) generates approximately 86,000 more trips or an 8.9 percent increase in projected buildout traffic compared to buildout of the current General Plan. The Preferred Alternative, however, is an improvement in the substantial imbalance between trip production and attraction in the study area (also see Draft EIR Section V: Project Alternatives). While the Preferred Alternative improves the imbalance in the Mid District, a large portion of the City and study area imbalance continues to be in this area of the City. The following discussion and tables detail the impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. Mid-Block Impact Analysis Average daily traffic levels have been calculated for the Preferred Alternative and are presented in the following table. A more detailed discussion of link or segment can be found in the general Plan Traffic Report in the appendix of this document. As with all of the General Plan alternatives, including the existing plan, roadway links with high existing and predicted traffic volumes occur at the I-10 over- crossings at Monterey Avenue, Washington Street and Cook Street. Other streets with link congestion include Cook Street, Washington Street, Varner Road, Washington Street, Portola Avenue, Fred Waring Drive and highway 111. While link capacities will be significantly impacted, it is impacts to intersections that will be the determining factor in roadway network operations, as discussed below. Table III General Plan Roadway Analysis General General Plan 2000 Plan Buildout(Post 2020) Roadway ADT Designation ADT Highway 111 Major Arterial E of Bob Hope Dr. 42,100 68,587 E of Fred Waring Dr. 32,700 40,966 W of Monterey Ave 28,400 39,065 E of San Pablo Ave 27,900 48,670 W of Cook St. 30,500 62,028 W of Washington St. 35,000 72,030 U.S. Interstate-10 Freeway W of Bob Hope (Ramon Rd.) 83,000 211,000 12 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report111.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 S of Ramon Road 85,000 221,100 E of Cook Street 76,000 227,800 E of Washington St. 64,000 204,700 Monterey Avenue Arterial N of Dinah Shore 32,700 64,860 N of Gerald Ford Dr. 34,600 42,238 N of Country Club Dr. 30,600 33,226 N of Fred Waring Dr. 23,000 32,388 Portola Avenue Major Thoroughfare S of Highway 111 13,000 12,955 N of Highway 111 19,300 24,275 N of Fred Waring Dr. 17,400 24,266 N of Magnesia Falls Dr. 20,500 28,358 N of Country Club 9,600 39,495 N of Frank Sinatra 5,200 30,948 N of Gerald Ford 48,234 Cook Street Arterial N of Highway 111 14,300 35,707 N of Fred Waring Dr. 25,500 37,263 N of Country Club 22,100 46,389 N of Frank Sinatra 16,700 60,648 N of Gerald Ford 21,900 61,962 N of US I-10 (Chase School Rd.) 5,900 46,116 Washington Street Arterial N of Highway 111 27,200 46,695 N of Fred Waring Dr. 31,000 45,151 N of Hovley Ln(Ave 42) 43,000 43,769 N of Country Club 46,200 74,786 N of US I-10 23,700 72,713 N of Varner Road 9,500 62,745 Fred Waring Dr. Arterial E of Highway 111. 15,700 24,471 E of Monterey Ave 28,900 38,979 E of San Pablo Ave 38,300 40,991 W of Cook St. 47,600 49,749 W of Washington St. 21,700 54,770 Country Club Drive Arterial W of Monterey 28,800 33,380 W of Portola Ave. 18,700 25,025 W of Washington St. 31,700 39,771 13 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Frank Sinatra Drive Arterial W of Monterey Ave 13,500 24,918 W of Portola Ave 11,300 27,522 W of Cook Street 10,300 26,142 Gerald Ford Drive Arterial W of Monterey Ave 15,600 39,837 W of Portola Ave 15,500 43,633 W of Cook St. 5,900 34,428 E of Cook St 6,000 16,215 Dinah Shore Drive Arterial W of Monterey Ave 20,500 46,798 E of Monterey Ave 37,127 Ramon Road Major Arterial E of US I-10 15,900 28,475 E of Varner Road 6,800 28,200 E of Monterey Ave 6,600 15,819 Varner Road E of Monterey Ave 4,000 29,205 E of Cook(Chase School Rd) 3,500 37,399 E of Washington St 7,000 22,481 Intersection Levels-of-Service (LOS) and Impact Analysis As noted above, intersections are the arbiters of roadway network performance, representing the greatest constraint on operations and levels of service. The proposed update to the General Plan Circulation Element establishes and directs actions to maintain acceptable levels of service on all community roadways. The City traffic engineers and transportation planners strive to provide optimum roadway operating conditions while controlling the costs of building and maintaining infrastructure to assure those conditions. For many years, LOS C was considered the desirable and optimal level of traffic volume on any given roadway, and may still be an appropriate policy target for lower traffic areas. However, LOS C represents a standard that is progressively more difficult and costly to achieve in urban areas. This is especially true in geographic areas such as the Palm Desert study area, where access is restricted by geography, major drainage features and growing dependence on limited-access freeway facilities. For peak operating periods, LOS D and/or a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 is now considered the generally acceptable service level. The following table identifies impacts to 54 intersections most likely to be impacted by buildout of the General Plan study area. The analysis is based upon a conservative estimate of the ultimate level of buildout in the study area and should be viewed accordingly. The table identifies the current operating conditions and those associated with buildout of the Preferred Alternative. Operating conditions are represented by the delay or wait in seconds at the intersection and determines the LOS for each. 14 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR i Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Table IV Intersection Impact Analysis Current Conditions & Preferred Alternative With Ultimate Improvements (Post 2020) Current Conditions Preferred Alternative GP Intersection Traffic Delay(sec.) LOS Delay(sec.) LOS Control AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM College of the Desert(NS)at: • Fred Waring Dr.(EW) TS 17.6/23.6 B/C 27.2/23.8 C/C Cook St. (NS) at: • Country Club Dr.(EW) TS 32.6/27.8 C/C 26.5/30.3 C/C • Frank Sinatra Dr.(EW) TS 32.6/34.1 C/C 34.8/40.3 C/D • Fred Waring Dr.(EW)3 TS ---3/56.1 F/E 33.9/44.8 C/D • Gerald Ford Dr.(EW) TS 25.0/24.0 C/C 43.5/50.1 D/D • Hovley Ln.E.(EW) TS 27.5/32.1 C/C 38.2/49.4 D/D • I-lO Fwy.EB Ramps (EW)' TS 21.6/21.1 C/C 19.5 /28.8 B/C • I-10 Fwy.WB Ramps(EW) TS 8.5 / 10.2 A/B 11.6/ 14.2 B/B • SR-111 (EW)2 TS 33.0/33.2 C/C2 37.9/34.7 D/C Country Club Dr.(NS) at: • Oasis Club Dr.(EW) TS 18.7/ 16.8 B/B 31.7/37.4 C/D Deep Canyon Rd.(NS) at: • Fred Waring Dr.(EW) TS ----3/----3 F/F 33.4/33.0 C/C • SR-111 (EW) TS 32.9/33.1 C/C Desert Crossing (NS)at: • SR-111 (EW)2 TS 26.5 /40.0 C/D 34.3 /34.9 C/C El Dorado Dr. (NS) at: • Country Club Dr.(EW) TS 23.6/24.3 C/C 31.1 /33.7 C/C • Frank Sinatra Dr.(EW) TS 10.3 / 10.2 B/B 17.6/ 19.1 B/B • Hovley Ln. E.(EW) TS 16.1 /---3 C/F 12.3 /23.0 B/C • SR-111 (EW) TS 23.3 /24.6 C/C 32.3 /28.3 C/C El Paseo/Town Center Wy.(NS) at: • SR-111 (EW) TS 30.7/32.8 C/C2 33.5 /35.0 C/C El Paseo/Cabrillo Ave.(NS) at: • SR-111 (EW) TS 23.3 /26.2 C/C 27.5 /33.4 C/C Frank Sinatra Dr. (NS) at: 15 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR i Traffic&Circulation Staff Report111.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 • Gerald Ford Dr.(EW) TS 11.6/ 12.4 B/B 10.5 / 15.8 B /B Table IV, Continued Intersection Impact Analysis Current Conditions & Preferred Alternative Post 2020 Current Conditions Preferred Alternative GP Intersection Traffic Delay(sec.) LOS Delay(sec.) LOS Control AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM Hospitality Dr. (NS)at: • SR-111 (EW) TS 20.0/20.5 B/C 28.6/26.3 C/C I-10 EB Ramps (EW) at: • Ramon Rd./Bob Hope Dr TS 17.4/24.0 B/C 21.3 /32.2 C/C (NS) I-10 WB Ramps(EW) at: • Ramon Rd./Bob Hope Dr TS 40.0/--3 E/F 19.9/35.5 B/D (NS) Monterey Ave. (NS)at: • Country Club Dr.(EW) TS 27.9/34.0 C/C 29.9/31.7 C/C • Dinah Shore Dr.(EW)2 TS 16.1 / 17.3 B/B 35.0/43.8 C/D • Frank Sinatra Dr.(EW) TS 22.3 /23.3 C/C 24.5 /26.3 C/C • Fred Waring Dr.(EW) TS 23.9/32.8 C/C 26.2/33.4 C/C • Gerald Ford Dr.(EW) TS 25.8/33.0 C/C 33.5 /29.7 C/C • I-10 EB Ramps (EW) TS 16.0/ 33.0 B/C 24.4/31.7 C/C • I-10 WB Ramps (EW) TS 23.4/21.7 C/C 25.4/ 17.3 C/B • Park View Dr.(EW) TS 20.7/34.6 C/C 21.5 /24.4 C/C • SR-111 (EW) TS 25.6/44.7 C/D 33.1 /34.9 C/C Oasis Club Dr. (NS) at: • Hovley Ln(EW)42nd. Ave. TS 31.9/31.5 C/C Park View Dr./Painters Path(NS)at: • SR-111 (EW) TS 22.6/28.7 C/C 26.5 /28.3 C/C Plaza Way(NS) at: • SR-111 (EW) TS 18.6/30.2 B/C 19.8/29.9 B/C Portola Ave. (NS)at: ___ a __- a _-_-4 24.4/31.7 B/C • I-10 EB Ramps (EW) • Country Club Dr.(EW) TS 25.7/33.9 C/C 29.9/34.1 C/C • Frank Sinatra Dr.(EW) TS 14.4/ 17.6 B/C 25.9/31.3 C/C • Fred Waring Dr.(EW) TS 27.4/32.8 C/C 25.5 /28.8 C/C • Gerald Ford Dr.(EW) TS 11.6/ 12.3 B/B 26.3 /31.4 C/C 16 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 • Hovley Ln.E.(EW) TS 20.7/ 18.3 C/B 20.2/25.2 C/C • Magnesia Falls Dr. (EW) TS 25.9/27.6 C/C 34.6/30.0 C/C • SR-Ill (EW) TS 26.5 /31.3 C/C 33.8/29.1 C/C Table IV,Continued Intersection Impact Analysis Current Conditions & Preferred Alternative Buildout Post 2020 Current Conditions Preferred Alternative GP Intersection Traffic Delay(sec.) LOS Delay(sec.) LOS Control AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM San Luis Rey(NS) at: • SR-I 11 (EW) TS 22.5 /22.6 C/C 30.0/24.8 C/C San Pablo (NS) at: • Fred Waring Dr. (EW) TS 24.9/26.8 C/C 27.5 /34.0 C/C • SR-111 (EW) TS 26.6/27.2 C/C 30.1 /33.0 C/C SR-111 (NS) at: • Fred Waring Dr.(EW) TS 31.0/34.5 C/C 28.9/36.2 C/D Varner Rd. (NS) at: • I-l0 WB Ramps (EW) TS 16.6/ 16.6 B/B 13.5 / 11.8 B /B Washington St. (NS) at: • Country Club Dr.(EW)' TS 33.7/49.1 C/C 36.3/48.3 D/D5 • Fred Waring Dr.(EW)' TS 24,5/26.2 C/C 27.7/54.7 C/D • Hovley Ln.E.(EW)2 TS 44.5 /69.6 D/E 31.1 /34.8 C/C • Varner Rd.(EW)' TS 35.0/26.3 C/C 32.5 /34.7 C/C • I-10 EB Ramps (EW) TS 15.1 / 15.7 B/B 19.6/40.3 B/D • Notes 1.)Assumes LOS C improvements as set forth in the General Plan Traffic Report(see General Plan EIR). 2.)Pedestrians assumed not to occur on every cycle. 3.)Intersection will periodically operate at LOS F,with related delays. 4.)Intersection/Interchange not yet constructed. 5.)Requires removal of pedestrian green time(no ped crossing)on one leg of the intersection. Intersection Impact Analysis Summary As set forth in the table above and as shown on Table 4-6 in the General Plan Traffic Study (see Appendix C of the EIR), all intersections analysed can be improved to provide LOS D operating conditions in the Post 2020 (buildout) period. In several instances, specific improvement beyond those identified in the Master List of Funded/Assumed Improvements (see Table 2-6 in the General Plan Traffic Study, Appendix C) will be required, and in some of those instances the improvements take the intersection operating conditions (LOS) from "E" or "F" to "C". 17 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Typical improvements required to reach acceptable levels of service (LOS D) include such minor actions or assumptions as those cited in the notes to the above table: • Pedestrian use of some intersections not expected to occur on every signal cycle • Removal of green time, that is elimination of pedestrian crossing, at one leg of an intersection Portola Avenue Interchange Analysis As part of the General Plan Traffic Study analysis, an evaluation of the proposed Portola Avenue/Interstate-10 interchange was also examined. The analysis set forth in the above table does not assume the construction of this interchange. The analysis of the effect of the subject interchange indicates that roadways paralleling Portola Avenue, including Cook Street and Monterey Avenue, are required to carry significantly less traffic if the interchange is constructed. Based upon the above analysis, no significant adverse impacts to the City or planning area intersections or roadway network are expected to result from the post 2020 buildout of the City or the planning area. For purposes of analyzing the importance of the Portola Avenue/I-10 interchange, the General Plan Traffic Study also relied upon previous recent analysis2 and assessed the beneficial impacts these improvements would have on levels of service in the vicinity. Tables 7-3 and 7-4 in the General Plan Traffic Study in Appendix C of the EIR show the following improvements at intersections in the vicinity: Table V Impacts of Portola Avenue/I-10 Interchange Selected Intersection LOS With & Without Interchange Without Interchange With Interchange Intersection Traffic Delay(sec.) LOS Delay(sec.) LOS Control AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM Monterey Avenue (NS)at: •Dinah Shore Dr.(EW) TS 37.6/48.8 D/D 35.3/47.7 D/D • Gerald Ford Dr.(EW) TS 30.3 /33.0 C/C 33.1 /34.8 C/C •Frank Sinatra Dr.(EW) TS 27.3 /34.8 C/C 26.3 /34.7 C/C Bob Hope Drive at: (NS) • Dinah Shore Dr. (EW) TS 27.8 /33.2 C/C 26.8/34.0 C/C Cook Street at: • Gerald Ford Dr(NS) TS 29.6/30.8 C/C 29.8/34.8 C/C The beneficial impacts associated with construction of the Portola Avenue/I-10 interchange are substantial for the Post 2020 mid-block traffic volumes along Monterey Avenue and Cook Street, with less improvement to volumes on Washington Street. Alternatively, the interchange results in relatively modest increases in traffic on Portola Avenue. However, as can be seen from the above table, and Tables 7-3 and 7-4 in the General Plan Traffic Study, the construction of the interchange will have a positive if more modest impact on levels of service at other interchanges and intersections in the vicinity. The greatest improvements, in terms of reduction in seconds of delay, will be at the Cook Street/I-10 interchange, which will operate at good levels of service (LOS A through C)with the Portola Avenue/I-10 interchange. 2 "Desert Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis". Prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. October 18,2002 18 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 All-Weather Access Major drainages that affect roadway access both within the City and the planning area include the Whitewater River, Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, Deep Canyon Stormwater Channel, San Pascual Channel, Mid-Valley Stormwater Channel, Thousand Palms Flood Control Project and Thousand Palms Canyon Wash, cove neighborhoods and in areas north of Highway 111. Summary of Mitigation Measures As discussed above, intersections constitute the most constrained portion of the roadway network in the City and balance of the planning area. The following table provides a detailed analysis of the improvements (mitigation measures), both those already programmed and new/additional improvements that are needed to provide acceptable levels of service. It should be noted that although improvements are cited that will bring some intersections to LOS C, these improvements are not needed in most instances in order to achieve acceptable levels of service. Those intersections requiring enhanced improvements to operate at acceptable levels of service are shown in italics. 19 v TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11•.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Table VI Intersection Mitigation Improvements and Resulting Levels of Service City and Unincorporated Planning Area/Post 2020 Period INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES2 NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAYS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC' BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 'Bob Hope Dr.(NS) at: I-10 WB Ramps(EW) TS 1 3 0 0 3 1>> 0 0 0 2 0 1 -4 --4 F F With LOS "D"Improvements TS 2 3 0 0 3 1>> 0 0 0 2 0 2 19.9 35.5 B D - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 2 3 0 0 3 1» 0 0 0 2 0 1» 20.7 33.9 C C •I-10 EB Ramps(EW) TS 0 31 1 3 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 34.4 --4 C F - With LOS "D"Improvements TS No Intermediate LOS "D"Improvements - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 0 3 1 2 3 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 21.3 32.2 C C Park View Dr./Painters Path(NS)at: •SR-111 (EW) TS 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 3 0 1 3 1 26.5 28.3 C C SR-111 (NS)at: •Fred Waring Dr.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 2 3 0 48.6 -4 D F - With LOS "D"Improvements TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 2 2 1> 28.9 36.2 C D - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 2 2 1>> 29.3 34.3 C C Desert Crossing(NS)at: •SR-111 (EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 3 1 2 3 0 34.3 34.9 C C El Paseo/Town Center Way(NS)at: SR-111 (EW) TS 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 33.5 35.0 C C _laza Way(NS)at: •SR-111 (EW) TS 1 1 1 1 0.5 1.5 2 3 0 _ 1 3 1 19.8 29.9 B C Monterey Av. (NS)at: •I-10 EB Ramps(EW) TS 0 3 1 2 2 0 2 0 1>> 0 0 0 24.4 31.7 C C •Dinah Shore Dr.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 2 1 1 2 1>> 35.0 43.8 C D5 - With LOS "C"Improvements(Alt1) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1» 2 3 1> 16 36 1»6 31.6 34.6 C C - With LOS "C"Improvements(Alt2) TS 2 3 1 26 36 1»6 3 2 1> 1 3 1» 29.2 34.7 C C •Gerald Ford Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 33.5 29.7 C C •Frank Sinatra Dr.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1» 2 3 1» 24.5 26.3 C C 20 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 •Country Club Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 29.9 31.7 C C •Park View Dr. TS 1 3 0 2 3 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 21.5 24.4 C C •Fred Waring Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 26.2 33.4 C C •SR-111 TS 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 33.1 34.9 C C I-10 WB Ramps(NS)at: •Vamer at Monterey Av.(EW) TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 25.4 17.3 C B College of the Desert(NS)at: •Fred Waring Dr. (EW) TS 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 27.2 23.8 C C n Pablo Av. (NS)at: red Waring Dr. (EW) TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 27.5 34.0 C C •SR-111 (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1>> 2 3 1 2 3 1 30.1 33.0 C C San Luis Rey(NS)at: •SR-111 (EW) TS 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 30.0 24.8 C C Portola Av. (NS)at: •I-10 EB Ramps(EW) TS 0 3 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 18.8 23.7 B C •Gerald Ford Dr. (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 26.3 31.4 C C •Frank Sinatra Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 25.9 31.3 C C •Country Club Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 29.9 34.1 C C •Hovley Ln.E. (EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 20.2 25.2 C C •Magnesia Falls Dr.(EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 34.6 30.9 C C •Fred Waring Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1» 1 2 1» 2 3 1 2 2.5 1.5 25.5 28.8 C C •SR-111 (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 33.8 29.1 C C I-10 WB Ramps(NS)at: -'amer Rd. at Portola Av.(EW) TS 1.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 13.2 15.4 B B Paseo/Cabrillo Av. (NS)at: •SR-111 (EW) TS 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 27.5 33.4 C C Deep Canyon Rd.(NS)at: •Fred Waring Dr.(EW) TS 1 2 1>> 3 2 0 1 3 1 2 3 1 33.4 33.0 C C •SR-111 (EW) TS 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 3 0 1 3 1 32.9 33.1 C C Hospitality Dr. (NS)at: •SR-111 (EW) TS 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 28.6 26.3 C C Cook St. (NS)at: •I-10 WB Ramps(EW) TS 0 3 1>> 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 11.6 14.2 B B •I-10 EB Ramps(EW) TS 0 3 0 1 3 0 1.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 -4 --4 F F • With LOS "D"Improvements TS No Intermediate LOS "D"Improvements 21 . s t TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 0 3 0 1 3 0 1.5 0.5 1>> 0 0 0 19.5 28.8 B C •Gerald Ford Dr.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 2 1 43.5 50.1 D D - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 2 3 1 2 3 1> 2 3 1>> 26 26 1>6 33.3 31.2 C C •Frank Sinatra Dr.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 34.8 40.3 C D - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 26 36 16 27.8 34.4 C C •Country Club Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 26.5 30.3 C C •Hovley Ln.E.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 38.4 49.4 D D - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1> 31.6 34.0 C C •Fred Waring Dr.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 1 2 3 1» 33.9 44.8 C D - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 24 34 14 2 3 1>> 2 3 1 2 4 1» 30.1 32.7 C C SR-111 (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 37.9 34.7 D C - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 26 36 16 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 34.6 33.5 C C Gerald Ford Dr.(NS)at: •Frank Sinatra Dr. (EW) TS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 0 10.5 15.8 B B5 Eldorado Dr. (NS)at: •Country Club Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 31.1 33.7 C C •Frank Sinatra Dr. (EW) TS 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 3 1 1 3 0 17.6 19.1 B B •Hovley Ln. E. (EW) TS 0.5 0.5 0 1.5 0.5 1 1 2 0 0.5 1.5 0 12.3 23.0 B C •SR-111 (EW) TS 1 21 1 20 1 31 1 31 32.3 28.3 C C Oasis Club Dr. (NS)at: •Country Club Dr.(EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 31.7 37.4 C D - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 16 26 16 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 31.7 31.2 C C •Hovley Ln. E.(EW) TS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 31.9 31.5 C C Washington St. (NS)at: •Varner Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 1.5 1.5 33.1 --4 C F With LOS "C"Improvements TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1 1 2 1> 2 1.5 1.5 32.5 34.7 C C5 I-10 EB Ramps(EW) TS 0 3 1 2 3 0 1.5 0.5 2 0 0 0 29.8 --4 C F - With LOS "D"Improvements TS 0 3 1 2 3 0 1.5 0.5 1>> 0 0 0 19.6 40.3 B D - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 0 3.5 1.5 2 3 0 1.5 0.5 1>> 0 0 0 17.8 30.9 B C •Country Club Dr.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 3 2 1 26 36 16 36.3 48.3 D D - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 2 3 1 2 4 1>> 3 2 1 2 3 1> 33.1 32.7 C C •Fred Waring Dr.(EW) TS 2 31 2 31 2 31 2 31 34.1 --4 C F - With LOS "D"Improvements TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1> 2 3 1 27.7 54.7 C D - With LOS "C"Improvements TS 3 3 1 26 36 16 2 3 1» 2 3 1 28.3 33.2 C C •Hovley Ln. E. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 31.1 34.8 C C5 22 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&FIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Varner Rd. (NS)at: •I-10 WB Ramps at Washington St. (EW) TS 2 2 0 0 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 13.5 11.8 B B TS-Traffic Signal;AWS-All Way Stop;CSS-Cross Street Stop. 2 When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;>=Right Turn Overlap;>>=Free Right Turn 3 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.5 Rl (2001). 4--=Delay High,Intersection Unstable,Level of Service "F". Pedestrians assumed not to occur on every cycle. _remove pedestrian minimum green(no ped crossing),WB Approach=North Leg,EB Approach=South Leg, NB Approach=East Leg, SB Approach=West Leg 23 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Mitigation via Roadway/Intersection Improvements The Draft Comprehensive General Plan states that the City shall make a good faith effort to assure that intersections operate at LOS D or better. The improvements set forth in the above table are mitigation measures designed to reduce Post 2020 (buildout) traffic impacts to levels of insignificance (LOS D). The improvements include the provision of new or additional turn lanes and through lanes, and in a few instances limitations on pedestrian green-time or access on certain legs of intersections. None of the prescribed limitations on pedestrian access are a significant impediment to pedestrian use and are located at intersections with the highest volumes and widest cross sections. On-Going Monitoring and Analysis The programmatic level of the General Plan study suggests that on-going and project-specific traffic monitoring is required to assure adequate levels of service in the long-term. The City shall periodically monitor conditions along roadway segments where General Plan level analysis indicates high levels of traffic congestion. In these areas of the roadway network intersection and progression analysis shall also be conducted to advance infrastructure planning to address areas of existing and anticipated traffic congestion. Mitigation via Alternative Modes of Transportation With the limited exception of the consideration of busing of students to schools, the traffic impact analysis conducted for the General Plan update does not consider the effects of the use of mass transit, biking or pedestrian-accessible land use planning on traffic volumes or roadway operations. As noted in the General Plan Traffic Study: "While the model is not intended to reflect vehicle trip reduction characteristics associated with the benefits of such a system combined with the proper mix of land uses, an especially well developed non-motorized transportation system could potentially reduce vehicle traffic substantially.i3 The General Plan Traffic Study also cites the continuing imbalance between the production and attraction of trips in the University Park planning area, caused by an abundance of commercial, institutional and industrial trip attractors and the limited number of sources of home-based production (residences). The study cites the unquantifiable but substantial potential for vehicle trip reduction from the compact mix of land uses, which promotes the use of buses, bike paths and pedestrian access. Bus Access As set forth in the general Plan Circulation Element, the City shall continue to coordinate and cooperate with the Sunline Transit Authority to expand and optimize the use of bus transit through the expansion of bus routes, the construction of user-friendly bus stops and shelters, and through joint ventures between Sunline and major potential users, including the colleges, retail and employment centers. 3 City of Palm Desert General Plan Traffic Study.Prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. September 5,2003. 24 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan&EIR Traffic&Circulation Staff Report/11.4.03/Amd.d 1.12.04 Golf Cart and Bike Paths The City golf cart path network is also a potentially significant alternative mode of transportation. The City shall continue to enhance the accessibility to and use of the golf cart and bicycle path network to the greatest extent practicable. Mitigation via Implementation of General Plan Policies and Programs The Circulation Element of the Draft Comprehensive General Plan includes fourteen (14) policies and twenty-nine (29) programs, which are designed to enhance the operation and efficiency of all aspects of the transportation system serving the planning area. Policies and programs address the on-going monitoring and management of traffic volumes and operating conditions, and the timing of required improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service. Summary of Mitigation The Draft General Plan, this EIR and the general Plan Traffic Study provide both programmatic and concrete/prescriptive actions and measures that are expected to reduce transportation impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan below levels of significance. In conjunction with the existing various regional transportation initiatives coordinated through the City and CVAG, the performance of transportation systems serving the City and planning area can be further enhanced. The continued thoughtful integration of land uses will also increase opportunities for mass transit and non- motorized means of transportation. Controlling access onto major arterial roadways will also serve to preserve capacity and limit the costs associated with expanded roadway infrastructure. GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND FOCUS ISSUES Circulation Plan and Street Cross-Section Amendments Since the transmittal of the GP Draft EIR, staff have conducted a continuing assessment of the General Plan Circulation Master Plan and Preferred Street Cross Sections. A modified circulation plan has been prepared and is attached to this staff report. Refinements to the preferred street cross sections are also attached. These substantially conform to those set forth in the Draft General Plan, EIR and traffic study. It is also proposed that two additional exhibits, "Typical Arterial Intersection" and "Typical No Left- Turn Pocket" (see attached exhibits), be added to the Circulation Element. 25 Q :P ii D ,« r� n :sthoi a yt 11 : - 0, 1 t 4:-.tio,1 II ...,..-. - i t w A Des_gn Frame ork for the univers_tv park concept al vis_on Palm Desert The purpose of this design framework is both to present a conceptual land use vision for University Park and to convey a basic sense of the community character envisioned. 111111111,111 September 18, 2003 A Conceptual Vision for University Park in Palm Desert ENTS Section Page Vision Statement 2 Land Use Plan 3 Design Guidelines • Low Density Residential 4 • Medium Density Residential 5 • High Density Residential 6 • Commercial 7 • Office 8 • Quasi-Public 9 • Streetscapes and Gateways 10 • Parks and Trails 11 2 A Conceptual Vision for University Park in Palm Desert . ._ VISION STEMENT O University Park is envisioned as a walkable, mixed-use community within the City of Palm Desert, that is strategically i l • $ situated contiguous to the future Cal State campus, nearby employment and shopping, and two existing and one future 18-hole i; `' public golf courses — not to mention easily accessible to Interstate 10, _� Portola Avenue, Cook Street, and Gerald Ford Drive. O University Pa' ,. ., is planned to have, as its backbone, a comprehensive multi-use trail and -- Aga ,. pathway system that safely connects all districts within the community, and an internal collector street system that reinforces walkability and the J use of neighborhood electric vehicles through the presence of street- facing buildings and a calmed, well-landscaped modified grid street • . ' design. O Within each district, buildings are anticipated to be oriented to driveways and streets shaded with landscaping and lined with pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and pathways that connect residents of ' ' xi-,.., Atraditional and compact single-family homes, townhouses, l' 01r condominiums, and apartments with nearby parks, employment, i V-7.01 shopping, education, and community facilities. O University Parks ID - balanced land use mix, combined with its strong circulation internal „i� i= 'i system, allow a diverse population to live close to local jobs and .ilishopping — thus reducing demands on Palm Desert's arterial street A j system. O Because the conceptual vision for University Park is built ^_ — upon both historical precedent and contemporary regional and national '477-T - development trends, it is envisioned to elevate Palm Desert's already strong image as a great city in which to live, work, shop, and play. 0 3 A Conceptual Vision for University Parkin Palm D, _ esert • . . LAND USE E �.�\7r* {Art aOE erY.AIV TARE 41.41114,444 ww ~ (�" UNIVERSITY PARK 14.44....r....,.(..au..a) awe 11 .444.4.4. '°"'"" ""1104,4) e1A / PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA w�o..wa.rr•wa Op aa w.K) __ \\ • • e..Ir./ter-K CA \.\ \ .w111m16w4.YI.YK n \ 0••••W-G W Ir.r.."I w W (/ 0 \ O - --" C Q�,y�'; ••: ?eAHC�aw Az. /.007 G.wAc. 0 ` t� \ G r \ �" •• - 0 KM 0 10'J0 AG- 8..Grow Az. 'P OO / • • /PILL O •• • • • ••• •t•[•1•t• i •I•ta r `ter Q��Q eecO.°R.AG • 000••••• ••. !!.• • ii�i•.!]i• •!•� .:'` .• • 1• I • OO • / >raft Pak. ••• . • •,�• • 20.0 CIrwAAc ••• • • ` / • ••,•l •/i • 2A C..Ac_ •• \.•,-/ Commercti .) -z . •• _V \ -J103 Grow.Az • •• _ Co mmaWl \�'�V _ �_ — 111 _. 2L1(craw Ac UOOOOO \e %/ Ise w Gro A. / 'S0 Grori.Az \'N J • 7e5 LGm.Aa • . • • / it,„I• •• * r I. CO 4 A Conceptual Vision for University Park in Palm Desert Lb PEN Y- RESIDE J FF - Description e a Fabric Low density, single © , family neighborhoods i ' a ' . i will have 1 to 4 dwelling r units per acre and will `tied" .r �f• F ft f, follow a variety of • Q 4 4 traditional Southern 1 a au, r: 1 _ ; -c California and desert Products architectural styles for new homes. " Neighborhoods are `-: i envisioned to be � :. +�� pedestrian-friendly with hI : _- 1 and 2-story homes "' , � � :,.� �, rY ,,! oriented to streets that • `'A ktilt "..4?,• . 1 iLionommil , encourage walking and — neighborliness. J ‘. � I IN 11 5 A Conceptual Vision for University Park in Palm Desert MEDIUM DENSITY RMIRENTirli_ . Description Fabric Medium density ,{ t" 4.4 ie1 , `nq r, . neighborhoods will alir. s range between 5 to 10 ....... O` 0 . t. dwelling units per ' 0_4 .u41 lai i*Iite',14 nei acre. Neighborhoods d�O a are envisioned to be -seei r-�-�� �,_2'�...t AIL _ Y comprised of a more tight-knit fabric of Products homes with varying front yard setbacks, 4 tletw front porches, and p " �..,,__ y -- ' variations of garage j,F �-.► I, 1 di OA 44 placement (e.g. alley AO r . .w i , P i.7 r` accessed, recessed _ — behind front facade of . home, etc.). , dowirimans, r % 1 6 A Conceptual Vision for University Park in Palm Desert HIGH DENSI ` rp a NTIAL Description Fabric High density '_ v 3'41kaft 4' -Iiiii%.*1 - .• �' neighborhoods will .� 't' fr 1► g a S�-'_ '� -•?." ;. vary from 10 to 22 "' • yr al1. _. .'a dwelling units per acre :.,,1 40,E erw, 0''. i'•,, yyy:» �`00; a`'S- �� and will be comprised : I�=/� "rS{,. of a mix of compact -- housing styles — from Products zero-lot line single `� ''6. family homes and - ` .. -j. i townhomes to - 3 '�� condominiums and �: • ,�, tap•• apartments. '!_._ _ i� { • Courtyards and open -...� fi.,.,'— ... ._ . o- , ; ► , - :, ,.% spaces that serve as - . _ gathering areas for the community are - envisioned for new - �I" r high density ' ' at_neighborhoods. -4,. , ire+ ... iiiiimb...,1 �' 7 II IY` r ' u n n { 4 7 A Conceptual Vision for University Park in Palm Desert OMM - ter, ME - E/COMMERCIAL Description Fabric -, - , Commercial and M Se ; . � 4-0, mixed use/commercial .- op-, +�. qr .- , development will ,� lit- u contribute to fostering ` 1 I :;.a ay - . I' 0 ': a vital sense of *'t • c ' ,►4,f. _4►-.L ' . _ ,. °'community in 3t;1 . - : �. t.• .. University Park for j "'" --'° both residents and Products visitors. Attention to architectural detailsIT and pedestrian- I 1 A o :' - .�• ra friendly design � `= fil:IV*-- it- elements will P' mi." ' ..ih": ' - . reinforce the '40 '` 0 - community s image as ? a place in which to live, work, shop and - " ` recreate. -- '` -tlirr-w .art v i. PIZZA s,HII d i. 1 -4 ,- • 1 Miltlirk ram Ir -; ' .1 , _ Amt._ IT • � •� � - - _ ram- _ , 8 A Conceptual Vision for University Park in Palm Desert OFFE . . Fabric Description -t . . *� :7 fi:- Office developmentVgglet , b dirt1 a ♦ will be an integral part - - .L . - - of University Park's ;�-, ----�44, C , mix of uses, providing i t nearby residents with workplaces and - I nearby commercial T businesses with Products daytime customers. 4 `. - Office buildings are r envisioned to have r ) , rn . ' , `, unique architecturalv t ` •"i L treatments and details r, ! that reinforce the - ' _ i community's kr �i .�,j .. commitment to a pedestrian-friendly V MI , setting. = �, ,, lt il1 + .,,,,, , 0 - r , , . . , .._ ., 4iiiiii-i - t ' _ •' �, 9 A Conceptual Vision for University Park in Palm Desert , . rJ-,k jrH7r,piBLIC y Products Description . ' ° $ University Park's design if ` H includes quasi-public �. 'r ' ` ` `�� - ' • :- ir uses that provide Palm _ , t • . , .moo r+ Desert residents with .�-. ., ; _,..- new opportunities for places of worship, day care centers n '�1' community centers, and to, "'� - other similar uses. '* ~fi `" 1 'M -_ _ - --- w ' . I1t Since quasi-public uses q a '` 1 are important civic ® uses, building , -- R -" .. = architecture is envisioned to convey a prominent presence in the community. ., _ (t wr . '� . : 10 A Conceptual Vision for University Park in Palm Desert Fr CAPE r I 1)1ATEWAYSAmu , _ ___� _ _ - F a b r i } c Description _ . _ v` '' .,�,.,r *• tit J�y ., _ Streetscapes and . t .� .r ��, : ��, ,x gateways will offer `Iv,i k•i,,7,,,�'£`"" • w°`y contribute to University '� �' ,,F. Park's inviting and 'K ` ,_ _ • (01 `•. aesthetic environment. ' � r h�-��y ram'' �0'�'" 1 ,h, Landscaping in a -- ---- parkways and medians Products along arterial streets will convey a visual iiii=alifirs connection to the surrounding desert - - !+ i, . / 1% environment. Distinct °E?( - qc ' 4 a monuments will _ fi ‘ ;r _ , characterize entries into 0 ., �.-_ the diverse set of _ neighborhoods and j ,�,,, commercial districts. ;. „ Neighborhood streetstilt Ai • - will be specifically { ,� �.�; 1- ' .. created to reinforce r. -' ., ► � ;ttN;H;; �'A, f ` ' •pedestrian comfort. - - f 11 A Conceptual Vision for University Park in Palm Desert PARKS AND TRAILS - Fabric Description (1�sor.�P } All of University Park diff" 1. o .o, will be connected bya • .� .! . : ,. U '. �,,y.. �04, ���NNIN� II,� trail system to allow /� a! ,�Oi:,�- eo le to walk or .r l� a ,' oomm� bicycle betweeniqYi home, work, shopping, school, or Products parks. The community includes several —` public parks that anchor nearby neighborhoods and ♦ F. hilk `: function as valuable '""r _--�==, �_: -#. amenities for residents and opportunities for • ti; - � active and passivelii - 4 recreation. , _ ' K +�' ;^ _ ;, `-- .0 .fir GENERAL PLC... 2000 1-L fM R-L R-• • LANDUSE CODES City of Palm Desert RESIDENTIAL LAND USES ctoQ4!w!f p�, Mountain Estates(R-ME)0-1 du/20ac o-` ..', Desert Estates(R-DE)0-1 du/10 ac t ! Hillside Reserve(R-HR) 1 du/5 ac . ��'��uu���•," avAor Low Density(R-L)0-4 du/ac R-M Medium Density(R-M)4-10 du/ac @II C-G, General Plan 2000 High Density(R-H) 10-22 du/ac COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS LAND USES R-M Planning Commission `-BP Commercial(C-R) D/�1W/MOREDR it- Regional ,N Recommended Alternative Community Commercial(C-C) December l6 2003 ,'`I� 1 Rtl General Commercial(C-G) R-M Neighborhood Commercial(C-N) R_R41,4" . ‘4- Resort Commercial(C-RS) ` 0 1.500 3,000 :::. d.� �.�_ Mixed Use(MU)-Commercial/High Density(R-H)10-22 du/ac 4.4Feet I-BP 1-BP q-) Office Professional(C-OP) , C3r� R-L FA Office Professional(C-OP)/Medium Density(R-M)4-10 du/ac 4t - WA Office Professional(C-OP)/High Density(R-H) 10-22 du/ac Industrial-Business Park(I-BP) Industrial-Light(I-L) • Ckfl \ OS/PR I-BP OS/PR OTHER LAND USES ‘14-11-1) R"M PF R L Public/Quasi-Public Facilities(PF) PP E\V Public Facility/School(PF/S) I 1-BP • R-L M Public Facility/University(PF/U) R-H R-M R-L DE 'C-(i Open Space-Parks(OS/PP) \sFi' �\\ Open Space-Public Reserves(OS/PR) GERALD FORD DR MAID FORD DR - C-OP C-OP1 •�, OS/PR Open Space-Private(OS/PV) MU i R-H, Open Space-Waterway(OS/FW) .` OS'' -- R-H I-BP C-G /PP Freeway(FWY) t R-M ssss .`.:`: �yc OS/Pv [1.1 Study Zone(S) OS/PP t,, R_M :�MU•� �` 11 ! OS/PP �� ��� GENERAL PLAN LANDUSE TEXT ACRES BLDG SQ FT UNITS 4 , t-BP Ii�. Commercial, Community C-C 37 406,656 �•! ,(� Commercial, Office Professional GOP 25 273,761 Rill C-G • la Commercial, Regional GR 275 2,990,505 C�'�3 R-L � � -- l_BP Commercial, Resort GRS 307 3,338,323 R-L ''�O Industrial, Business Park I-BP 330 3,588,607 lea, ��� ,PMixed Use MU 37 201,737 333 i ,�►Open Space, Parks OS/PP 230 b el Open Space, Public Reserves OS/PR 8 2 / �.: `+ PPN • Public Facility/School PF/S 45 R-M ".;V C 3 Public Facility/University PF/U 192 ..,, Public/Quasi-Public Facilities PF 2 s`ss. Residential, High Density R-H 103 1,845 �P:::.`. Residential, Low Density R-L 413 1,238 —_ (aUtp ���� Residential, Medium Density R-M 132 924 --- --- FRANKSI (47Z4 DR FRANKSIN1TRA DR OSIPR FIANKflM4TRA R-L TOTALS 2,135 10,799,588 4,340 R-L OS • c C� Z? @C R-L - • GENERAL PLAN 2000 City of Palm Desert LANDUSE CODES ,• ":14:11 :1 jot RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Mountain Estates(R-ME)0-1 du/20ac , Desert Estates(R-DE)0-1 du/10 ac .'"'; Hillside Reserve(R-HR)1 du/5 ac �o Low Density(R-L)0-4 du/ac R-L Medium Density(R-M)4-10 du/ac — University Park Area — High Density(R-H)10-22 du/ac RN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIALIBUSINESS LAND USESillhlt R-H General Plan 2000 Regional Commercial(C-R) D//W/'•!/T�I7ORE'DR laillh- At- No GPAC - Community Commercial(C-C) 1. Preferred Alternative - General Commercial(C-G) R M January 9, 2004 - Neighborhood Commercial(C-N) ,/y_ %, I-BP - Resort Commercial(C-RS) '4 v \\ \ Mixed Use(MU)-Commercial/High Density(R-H)10-22 du/ac 7 - Office Professional(C-OP) W �O 0 1,500 3,000 r, Office Professional(C-OP)/Medium Density(R-M)4-10 du/ac ` I B ee 1 ar Wi Office Professional(C-OP)/High Density(R-H)10-22 du/ac L Industrial-Business Park(I-BP) V1 - Industrial-Light(I-L) O litr*Illik R-L I"Bp I-L OTHER LAND USES lei i I ' PP T PublidQuasi-Public Facilities(PF) R1y j ,_ Imo\N EE:EcEnEU) R_M /-Bp1L � "MI OS/PP) „,--2,,,,,,„„r IP-IJ Open Space-Public Reserves(OS/PR) .D� • �. GERM, • I, ��_, - Open Space-Private(OS/PV) - Open Space-Waterway(OS/FW) - Freeway(FWY) IIMI Study Zone(S) to MN University Park Area i h h i bi 1 1 v gW .,,,,L, GENERAL PLAN LANDUSE TEXT ACRES BLDG SO FT UNITS %Acres W I! RM i Commercial, Community GC 75 812,394 3.48iil V1 �� Commercial, General GG 45 490,050 - 2.10 Commercial, Neighborhood GN 9 101,277 - 0.43 R-L ill ke) I B !-BP Commercial, Office Professional GOP 9 92,565 - 0.40 eit r R-Al '�� 4 I;'l, Commercial, Regional C-R 132 1,438,569 - 6.17 `�� �� ,,: Commercial, Resort ii 328 3,568,653 358 3,894,531 180 - L 26 -49 192 - - 8.97 ii R L ! G Residential, Low Density R-L 292 877 13.64 GRs Residential, Medium Density R-M 268 - 1,876 12.51 Residential, High Density R-H 181 3,256 8.44 -Frouw '5I a724'DR •:%1��1�.=:i1��1`�l-Ti irt),1 Ri�IJNIfCS/�KIITE4 DA „ R-L TOTALS 2,142 10,398,039 6,009 100.00 C-RS R-L ,L R-L -L City of Palm Desert GENERAL PLAN 1995 gyp,, LANDUSE CODES c<4...9.-_^`t, Residential Land Uses J�`9 V�.F LOW DENSITY 3-5 Du/Ac. _ ^RESIDENTIAL STUDY ZONE Commercial/Industrial/Business Land Uses COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL - University Park Area - COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT COMMERCIAL Existing H DIN SHORErDR r I, University Park Area <.., General Plan ff.�. '+"' 7!, 0 1,500 3,000 44 ii ee Itt W COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL N Iti II '9j TRICT LOW DENSITY CO C/AL1111 RESIDENTIAL ST UYDY ZONE GERALD FORD DR - GERAL 011 t� L' DIS4TR/CT i I RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL STUDY ZONE M ' v W RESIDENTIAL �% "V ,, OC STUDY ZONE ,� N GENERAL PLAN LANDUSE ACRES BLDG SQ FT UNITS %Acres 1� �`<<j COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL 708 7,704,675 32.97 X LOW DENSITY at Ic>r DISTRICT COMMERCIAL 67 730,719 3.13 c., c) N. LOW DENSITY 1,216 3,647 56.64 LOW DENSITY k Nil COMMERCIAL4 4, ,4e RESIDENTIAL STUDY ZONE -- INDUSTRIAL (RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY) 73 ___i_____ 219 3.40 0 ftt RESIDENTIAL STUDY ZONE -- (RESIDENTIAL- HIGH DENSITY) 10 180 0.47 RESIDENTIAL STUDY ZONE -- LOW DENSITY ''N\ (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) 73 794,970 3.40 TOTALS 2,146 9,230,364 4,046 noty K5!NA'TR4 DR FRANK'SIPA-TRA'DR -�"- FRANK SIN4TAA-DA • • City of Palm Desert GENERAL PLAN 1995 LANDUSE CODES Residential Land Uses LOW DENSITY 3-5 Du/Ac. f y ir 1 RESIDENTIAL STUDY ZONE Commercial/Industrial/Business Land Uses - University Park Area - COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT COMMERCIAL b Existing DIN iI'SHORE'DR General Plan ® University Park Area 4 ,+' .70 41 0 1,500 3,000 ee W COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL �, LA i DISTRICT LOW DENSITY \ Cii CIAL RESIDENTIAL STUDY ZONE GEA'ALD FORD DR _ :'GERALD FORD DR 'AiDISTRICT ` RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL STUDY ZONE Os /c c Wits'' ` , tat it RESIDENTIAL R 7 4. W TUDY ZONE GENERAL PLAN LANDUSE ACRES BLDG SQ FT UNITS %Acres v V rill gth. COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL 708 7,704,675 32.97 LOW DENSITY IC DISTRICT COMMERCIAL 67 730,719 3.13 la b '� LOW DENSITY 1,216 3,647 56.64 LOW DENSITYhSi ll COMMERCIAL �.P RESIDENTIAL STUDY ZONE -- ig INDUSTRIAL (RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY) 73 219 3.40 O RESIDENTIAL STUDY ZONE -- V (RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY) 10 180 0.47 RESIDENTIAL STUDY ZONE -- I LOW DENSITY (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) 73 794,970 3.40 �__ �1 1 TOTALS 2,146 9,230,364 4,046 100.00 FRi4NA"Sl�l XTRA�DR _ FRAINA rSINd4T,A'DR FRAJ K51N4TRA DFA ----- 1 s: y /-- .>. Lu'ILLi-8v i :,--ielli t VP '` 111114re i- , A . ,. . ___, , . till .. . ._,.., olritnit :. ,„, 1,14.4, ; — _ . . . , i t 4...., ii pi 1, 1 ,..- iii- 1 -" a ,,,,. . „ ., , ,.. ............ . itir ""11' •••••, 4Is • LIL ' 7, I 1111 4 pi , son r• t MI Pli ,A „ iiii 1 ! , ... Q or _ mil to. , . , _ 1, ,. 1 .4 I , � �7y 777nw+ gme rCz3% X WAY AT:re-4,7r-evarD��/)/.'��Jry/7 c J - '• ,71 I.Y,,III •'stworr- --- : i e - ----NI=t, g .. ... PI'C.1 0. J 0. 1/ - r. Li.G.Ju , . J J . or ■ .. --1) alk s . '-or entaj I -. f `f , ik. . 111110 low sliii' ■ nrr a i, f r �`i k'Net V g. 11 C Y r4. a IIIIIII *, - • ttOilli filig lip 44 1 1,i iiiilair i 14, will , ....„ --- a. "/„. i , , . ,,,.. 4,., , . _. i „ , .. 4.,0 t.,,,,,, _ ., . , ,... „,, , ... .. 41, �• • wo.«. woo«. ..,.w ._.,., ,-..... • ,�5. ....,, 111 LI . . _ .0 i Ara ■t St. ' — ■■I■■■■ I ■I I ■l Ida,' �,.�Ali „� i I Jul II i� ��I o II di P. Ail Alb �., � ° � -i0i°i■ri■i1i�ii■i�1 i�i4i i 1.w i . IiP in i�i is _ • - �.4 ,� i �M .� ., . . . . 24 FOOT .4L°LEY i 411' .,I,. ,...... _ ..`+24FDOT :4LL`EY- — a r ,� a r i L. ... , 2. _41P. i . • 1 ' * 'it III .1.;1111:# gil ' ."' ' P° .. i 1 �y iliELH.Lit.4 1 I I les::g/ .1 4.119 4'..... I + * 1 Iiir- ,'.' % • j '*„% F ' ' I t, .. I,.leinP - 11 1111111 10114101111, L Ilr _- _ f .. s tifi =�i^_ � c�Tc��✓.' ,r �"" -,e. try_ •t•r. _r a s+..a�_a► M al �. ...at , �� ra J•,,.••• t.rRs w. r.=. • ) .�.�.ra�rY�., r� a ..ate ...� .,. --.•- ♦• psi 1p, �,,. .�-- is _. _ + "grl �r " ,' , _ ''' rL? H >fI£I - A HWY 1 1 STATE HWY `1.1.1" ;, .. ...-. se • Y` , Int te a.i ♦Ai4 --- ,r... '.7 -_.� i. w s -7- -.a.+` �4 x WO. :,y -t ' a .t.. #`*Y. - •"'.z+{s�l . R. ~ �..m sra.w.sw...w.s�w.w..., • PALS LZ Y 11 L;f FJ f ‘ii r +t •1 -x . •„. .0 A 11Plii"''''' _ ..4 sow 7 a'Zit#1111111111111#0.**111111 * Ilfr •44, t� a l ), • + t a+ s ill ' + �• L • :' a t slid 1 „at i �«� + o f p A',EA Legend ����. II. w* .,., i - •a,r ` 4 3 tit 11. p P B. House • -II 4 or. • _ • P Ti f r �f I1 t � : ' ' - �i _ • � N Driveway • •. e t 4. Carport +� " j ,. A • a t +r 1 ■ ii.1 „`„�. .� Feet .ir• . •. As �r + —* .aU ' _ • = - . ' r Revised Parcel Boundaries �;r •. ' -- - -.a. I t * i � . � •. ~. .. .,.w i. S`.,i,.,a f - , 0 60 120 180 I Core Parking I ,.ti, ; Commercial n L W . lb' October 10,2003 8 Spaces